Opinion ID: 1726271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether turner was prejudiced and denied the right to a fair trial by the prosecutor's remarks made during opening and closing argument.

Text: ¶ 5. Turner first contends that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's remarks made in his opening argument referring to Turner as a burglar. During his opening argument, the prosecutor made the following statement: The defendant in this case today is Timothy Turner. He's a burglar. We'll prove that to you today. If you've ever wondered what one looks like, that's what one looks like right there. After this remark was made by the prosecutor, defense counsel objected to the statement, and the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the statement made by the prosecutor. ¶ 6. This Court, in McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss.1987), addressed the effect of a trial court sustaining an objection to a prosecutor's remarks characterizing the defendant and instructing the jury to disregard the remark as follows: Where a prosecutor engages in conduct such that the defendant's right to a fair trial is substantially impaired, and where the trial judge improperly fails to grant a mistrial, this Court will reverse on appeal. Hickson v. State, 472 So.2d 379, 384 (Miss. 1985); Clemons v. State, 320 So.2d 368, 372 (Miss.1975); Pieratt v. State, 235 So.2d 923, 924-25 (Miss.1970). Yet, a timely objection, promptly sustained with an instruction for the jury to disregard the prosecutor's comments, is generally sufficient to dissipate any taint of prejudice. Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 210 (Miss. 1985); Hanner v. State, 465 So.2d 306, 311 (Miss.1985); Terrell v. State, 262 So.2d 179, 181 (Miss.1972). .... Clearly, it is impermissible for the prosecutor to abuse or vilify the defendant in his arguments before the jury, thereby appealing to its passion or prejudice. Curry v. State, 328 So.2d 328, 330 (Miss.1976); Stewart v. State, 263 So.2d 754, 758-59 (Miss.1972); Craft v. State, 226 Miss. 426, 434, 84 So.2d 531, 534-35 (1956). Yet, consistent with the authority cited above, there is no error where, as here, the trial judge sustains a seasonable objection, instructing the jury to disregard the comment. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 135 (Miss. 1987). In the case sub judice, we find that there is no error, for the trial court properly sustained the objection of defense counsel and instructed the jury to disregard the comment made by the prosecutor. McFee, 511 So.2d at 135 (citations omitted). Thus, the trial court's actions dissipated any taint of prejudice to Turner. Id. ¶ 7. Turner next contends that remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were highly prejudicial and warrant reversal. During the prosecutor's closing argument, the following argument was made by the prosecution: Just blaming the victim. Putting the victim on trial here. He had been violated by having his truck broken into, and then violated by losing money; he had been violated by leaving his business. He's got a small business, got one person out there that helps him a little bit. Hadn't been violated enough. Just blame the victim. Is that what we want? Is that what our society has gotten to? Ladies and gentlemen, it's up to you to put a stop to this type of behavior. It's up to you to hold Timothy Turner responsible for what he did out there that night. We've done everything that we can do. The police department, the law enforcement in Yazoo City and Yazoo County, they have done absolutely everything that they can do. Can't ask anymore from them. We've done everything that we know how to do. We've all done our jobs. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you were picked as a jury because you've all got common sense, you come from diverse backgrounds, you're good, voting citizens of Yazoo City and Yazoo County, like Mr. Williamson, the victim in this case; like these law enforcement people. Not like Timmy Turner. However, after this argument was made before the jury, defense counsel failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the argument. ¶ 8. This Court, in Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss.1985), stated: We next observe it is the duty of a trial counsel, if he deems opposing counsel overstepping the wide range of authorized argument, to promptly make objections and insist upon a ruling by the trial court. The trial judge first determines if the objection should be sustained or overruled. If the argument is improper, and the objection is sustained, it is the further duty of trial counsel to move for a mistrial. The circuit judge is in the best position to weigh the consequences of the objectionable argument, and unless serious and irreparable damage has been done, admonish the jury then and there to disregard the improper comment. Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 209-10 (Miss.1985) (citations omitted). Thus, this Court has continuously held that a defendant was procedurally barred from challenging remarks made by the prosecution during closing argument when the record demonstrated that the defendant did not lodge a contemporaneous objection at trial. Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1246 (Miss.1995) (citing Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1289 (Miss.1994)); see also Lester v. State, 692 So.2d 755, 795-96 (Miss.1997) (holding issue waived where defense counsel failed to object to prosecutor's comments at trial); Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824, 853 (Miss.1995) (holding that defendant's failure to make contemporaneous objection to prosecutor's comment barred issue from review on appeal); Dunaway v. State, 551 So.2d 162, 164 (Miss.1989) (holding that contemporaneous objection must be made to prejudicial comments by the prosecution or the point is waived). Additionally, this Court held that error not raised at trial or in post-trial motions may not be reviewed on appeal. Davis, 660 So.2d at 1246 (citing Foster, 639 So.2d at 1289; Watts v. State, 492 So.2d 1281, 1291 (Miss.1986)). Thus, we hold that since Turner did not make a contemporaneous objection or raise this issue in his post-trial motion for a new trial that this issue is procedurally barred. ¶ 9. Without waiving the procedural bar, this Court may address the assignment of error on the merits. Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 835 (Miss.1994); Foster, 639 So.2d at 1271. This Court has repeatedly cautioned prosecutors against using the `send a message' argument. Evans v. State, Nos. 93-DP-01173-SCT, 94-CA-00176-SCT, 1997 WL 562044, at , ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Miss. Sept.11, 1997) (citing Hunter v. State, 684 So.2d 625, 637 (Miss.1996); Chase, 645 So.2d at 854; Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss.1988); Carleton v. State, 425 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Miss.1983)). ¶ 10. In Fulgham v. State, 386 So.2d 1099 (Miss.1980), this Court considered a lengthy argument by the prosecution that the jury was the final link in the chain of law enforcement. Fulgham v. State, 386 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Miss.1990). Although Fulgham was reversed on other grounds, the Court stated, We do not think that this assignment of error, standing alone, would require a reversal. Fulgham, 386 So.2d at 1101. ¶ 11. In Williams, this Court was presented with the lack of an appropriate record for appellate review and refused to reverse the appellant's conviction due to the following remark by the prosecutor: By your vote, you can make the statement clearly, steadfastly, and unequivocally that law or order exists for everyone in Harrison County. Williams, 522 So.2d at 208. ¶ 12. In Evans, the prosecutor made the following remark during closing argument: You are a part of the criminal justice system, the final step, and it is by your vote that this decision will be made. Evans, 1997 WL 562044, at , ___ So.2d at ___. No objection was made to this statement, and although the remarks were extremely close to being improper, this Court, following the reasoning in Fulgham and Williams, held that these comments alone do not appear to require reversal. Id. at , at ___. ¶ 13. The remarks in the case sub judice are similar to those made by the prosecutors in Fulgham, Williams, and Evans, and likewise, these comments alone do not require reversal. However, the remarks constitute a link in the chain argument and are hereby condemned. Prosecutors should refrain from use of such arguments. ¶ 14. The trial judge's sustaining of the objection with instructions to the jury to disregard cured the first issue regarding the prosecutor's comment made during opening statement. Turner's complaint about the prosecutor's comment made during closing argument is procedurally barred. Alternatively, considered on the merits, although we condemn the use of the particular comment as improper link in chain, nevertheless, applying Fulgham, Williams, and Evans, the comment standing alone does not warrant reversal.