Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: massive investigation

Text: The appellant also argues that he is entitled to a reversal of his conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. He objects to the prosecutor's remark that the investigation was the most extensive investigation ... that I've ever heard of and to the prosecutor's statement that the appellant was the only suspect resulting from the investigation. The appellant contends that evidence of such an investigation was not before the jury, and that the prosecutor's comments exceeded the scope of proper argument. Our supreme court has observed that argument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted. Our courts seek to give great latitude to counsel in expressing their views of the case to the jury. Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn. 1975). See also State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn. 1994). The trial judge has wide discretion in controlling the argument of counsel. Smith, 527 S.W.2d at 739. Generally, on appeal, this court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion in the absence of abuse thereof. Id. However, if the prosecutor's remarks, in fact, stray[ed] beyond the wide latitude afforded, this court should consider, among other factors, the intent of the prosecutor, any curative measures undertaken by the court, the improper conduct viewed in context and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the cumulative effect of the remarks with any other errors in the record, and the relative strength or weakness of the case. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 809; Judge v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976). We note that curative instructions will not render all improper comments harmless; the test is whether the conduct ... affected the results to the prejudice of the appellant. State v. Byerley, 658 S.W.2d 134, 139 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). See also Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 809. In arguing that the investigation was extensive, the prosecutor specifically referred to Deputy Richard Smith's testimony that the Sheriff's Department had interviewed between 200 and 250 people regarding this case. The prosecutor's observation, that the appellant was the only suspect, was similarly supported by the evidence introduced at trial. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the argument.