Opinion ID: 1152979
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the defendant was denied a fair trial due to repeated improper comments to the jury by the prosecutors.

Text: Lisle argues that the prosecutors made prejudicial remarks to the jury during both the guilt and the penalty phases of trial, in violation of his right to due process. Lisle did not object to the remarks at trial, except for statements concerning his drug use. As a general rule, the failure to object, assign misconduct, or request an instruction, will preclude appellate consideration. However, where the errors are patently prejudicial and inevitably inflame or excite the passions of the jurors against the accused, the general rule does not apply. Garner v. State, 78 Nev. 366, 372-73, 374 P.2d 525, 529 (1962) (citations omitted). Garner further stated, [i]f the issue of guilt or innocence is close, if the state's case is not strong, prosecutor misconduct will probably be considered prejudicial. Id. at 374, 374 P.2d at 530; cf. Lay v. State, 110 Nev. 1189, 1194, 886 P.2d 448, 451 (1994) ([W]here evidence of guilt is overwhelming, prosecutorial misconduct may be harmless error.).