Opinion ID: 1868654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Comment on Appellate Review

Text: The basis for reversal in Williams' previous trial was the district attorney's closing argument concerning appellate review of capital sentences. See Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782 (Miss. 1987). Williams contends that a statement made during closing argument in this resentencing phase would again warrant reversal by this Court. Yet, Williams' failure to object to the comment made by the prosecution during closing argument bars him from asserting prejudice in hindsight. See Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228 (Miss. 1995); Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263 (Miss. 1994); Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148, 1154 (Miss. 1992); Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss. 1987). Alternatively, without relaxing the procedural bar, we now address this issue on the merits. While Williams is correct that the mention of appellate review [is] impermissible, Williams, 544 So.2d at 800, it is unclear that the remark that Williams complains about is actually about appellate review. The comment in the prosecutor's closing argument that Williams is contesting is as follows: Karen Ann Pierce's mother follows the law... . She let the system take over. And the system has been at it for eight years. And the system is still at it. Now do we believe in the system? Due to the fact there had been a prior determination of guilt and this was a sentencing trial only, the jury was well aware that this case had been around for awhile. The prosecutor said these sentences in the context of commenting on the jury system and whether or not people should still believe that justice will prevail. Nothing was ever said about appellate review or that this case would be subject to such review. The prosecutor was referring to the time at hand, the time just before when the jury would go into deliberations. The comment complained of was nebulous. This issue is without merit.