Opinion ID: 1735417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comparison of Rights.

Text: ś 163. During closing arguments at the sentencing phase, the prosecutor stated: It's Charles Richardson's day in court, as well. You are going to hear all this about their begging you for Derrick's life that's in your hands. Well, what Derrick Walker is asking you folks for is the chance he never Charles Richardson. I imagine Charles Richardson would have liked to have had a few people there to beg for his life. I imagine he would have liked to have had somebody there protecting his rights, as has been scrupulously done in this case for Mr. Walker. Derrick wants what Charles never got that night, a chance to live, and he has had that chance, and now this thing is winding down, it's just about over, and it's time for all of us to do our duty. ś 164. The prosecutor's comment on the comparison of Richardson's rights to Walker's was an isolated comment on the evidentiary fact that Richardson was no longer alive and that his life was illegally taken by Walker. ś 165. This Court has in previous cases discussed the propriety of prosecutorial comments similar to the comments make by the prosecutor during the sentencing phase closing arguments. In Davis, 684 So.2d 643, during sentencing phase closing arguments, the prosecutor stated that Davis was the judge and the defense lawyer.... He was the jury. And he decided in his own mind to kill and murder.... Mr. Davis had due process. Id. at 654. Davis claimed that the statements constituted an improper comment on his exercise of specific constitutional rights. Id. In Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 900 (Miss. 1989), rev'd on other grounds, 498 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), Shell made the same contention regarding the prosecutor's comment that Shell was clothed in the full protection of the Constitution of the United States and he got what [the victim] never got. And that is a jury of twelve good people to decide his fate. In Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497, 511 (Miss.1997), during the sentencing phase closing arguments, the prosecutor made the following comments: [BY MR. DUNCAN:] Last year, for whatever reason, this Defendant decided that Gary Wells needed to die. He carried it out. He did it brutally, and then buried him in the backyard. For whatever reason, he justified it. And, he didn't come and ask twelve people like yourselves if that was okay. He didn't have, Gary Wells didn't have two lawyers to plead his case. Gary Wells didn't have the opportunity to have his family come and plead his case to the Defendant. Gary Wells didn't have the protection of the law. ś 166. In each case, the Court held that since there was no other portion of the closing argument to the same effect, the comments by the State were isolated and did not warrant a reversal. Wells, 698 So.2d at 511; Davis, 684 So.2d at 655; Shell, 554 So.2d at 900. ś 167. The language of Davis and Shell is clearly distinguishable. The language of Wells is similar to the issue presented here because neither the words due process, nor clothed in the full protection of the Constitution of the United States were mentioned. It cannot be said that Walker was denied a fundamentally fair trial. Alternatively, assuming arguendo that the comments rise to the level of Davis or Shell, they are isolated in nature, and since no other portion of the closing argument focused on the rights or even mentioned the exercise of constitutional rights, the comments do not warrant a reversal of the jury's verdict. See Wells, 698 So.2d at 511; Davis, 684 So.2d at 654; Shell, 554 So.2d at 900.