Opinion ID: 1706565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: did the trial judge err in allowing a witness to testify to the character of the victim?

Text: During cross-examination of a defense witness offering mitigation testimony during the sentencing phase, the following exchange occurred: Q. What do you think Michael Warren Willie can contribute to society? A. Well I think  Michael's life just began. I think he can contribute a whole lot, such as  what he did  I mean he  it was wrong, but he's a person. I think he can contribute just as much as I can to society? Q. You know Joe Clardy was a person too, wasn't he? A. Yes, he was. I do know that. Willie did not object to the State's questions. Willie argues that the State blatantly prompted the jury to weigh the value of Willie's life against the value of Joe Clardy's life. Because Willie made no objection to the State's questions at trial, we find Willie is procedurally barred from raising this error on appeal. Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657, 672 (Miss. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1695, 114 L.Ed.2d 89 (1991); Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 901 (Miss. 1989), reversed on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). Were we to address the objection, we would find that the comment by the prosecutor was improper. While the comment is not a victim impact statement, see Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657, 671-72 (Miss. 1990); Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 901 (Miss. 1989), reversed on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), the comment had no bearing on Willie's moral culpability. [4] We caution the State to avoid interjecting comments of this nature during the sentencing phase.