Opinion ID: 1330246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prosecution Argument

Text: Appellant's seventh assignment of error is the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to make two statements which were not supported by the evidence in its closing statements. Those statements were: (1) the .25 caliber Beretta pistol admitted into evidence was loaded; and (2) the appellant attempted to disguise his handwriting in the samples he was ordered to give before the trial court. The discretion of the trial court in ruling on the propriety of argument by counsel before the jury will not be interfered with by the appellate court, unless it appears that the rights of the complaining party have been prejudiced, or that manifest injustice resulted therefrom. Syllabus point 3, State v. Boggs, 103 W.Va. 641, 138 S.E. 321 (1927). After a careful review of the record we find that there was ample evidence presented at trial to support the two brief statements made by the prosecution in its closing argument. The arresting officer testified that the pistol was loaded. Also, the prosecution in its closing statement merely suggested that the jury compare the handwriting samples of the appellant which had been admitted into evidence. The prosecution mentioned the samples because the trial court earlier held that the prosecution's expert witness was not competent to give an opinion upon the question of whether a deception by the appellant was intended in some of the handwriting samples he gave. We find no reversible error in this case, and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fayette County is affirmed. Affirmed.