Opinion ID: 1952548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: The Mad Dog Comment.

Text: Defense counsel made the following comment during closing arguments: Now, the fact that our society is repulsed by killing is something that I never expect you to just forget when you go back there. We are, as a society, abhorring killing. We drive down the street in a car, and a rabbit or something runs out in front of us. What do you do? You swerve to avoid it. Why? You don't want to kill it, and I submit to you, folks, that in breaking [sic] and swerving to avoid killing an animal, that you consider that Bobby Wilcher is in the road that you are driving down now, and the decision on whether to swerve is yours. Thereafter, the following transpired during the District Attorney's rebuttal: [BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: [Defense Counsel] says, Well, when a rabbit runs in front of your car, don't you swerve to avoid hitting him? Yes; but, what has that rabbit done to harm anybody? But, if a mad dog is loose in your town, and innocent people are killed  BY [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Now, if Your Honor, please, I will object to his making a comparison of Mr. Wilcher to a mad dog, and we move for a mistrial. BY THE COURT: Overruled. BY [THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: If a mad dog is loose in your town and innocent people are killed, what do you do then? Bobby Wilcher is no rabbit. Wilcher contends that he was improperly vilified by the District Attorney's mad dog comment, and cites Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 552-53 (Miss. 1990). In Griffin, the case was reversed because the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant's failure to testify. Griffin, 557 So.2d at 552-53. Thus, the vilification of the defendant was only one of many reasons for reversal in the Griffin case. See Id. Furthermore, the prosecutorial comment must be considered in context. Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1270 (Miss. 1995). The defense chose to use imagery to compare Wilcher to a rabbit. An image that hardly fit a person who had already been found guilty of brutally stabbing the victim in this case thirty-one times. The State, in response, used imagery that it obviously found more appropriate. Considering the context in which the mad dog comment was made, it was within the latitude granted to counsel during closing arguments. See Ballenger, 667 So.2d at 1269-70 (death sentence affirmed where prosecution compared defendant/appellant to Charles Manson). Wilcher's argument to the contrary is without merit.