Opinion ID: 2516682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 3] Williams presents these issues for our review: I. Whether the trial court erred when it allowed both parties to argue conflicting interpretations of the felonious restraint statute? II. Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during voir dire and closing arguments which was so outrageous it prejudiced Williams and denied him his right to a fair trial? III. Whether the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that the value of human life includes quality of life, over defense counsel's objection? The State presents this statement of the issues: I. Whether it was plain error for the prosecutor to argue for a particular interpretation of the felonious restraint statute, and whether it was plain error for the trial court to allow the prosecutor and defense counsel to argue competing interpretations of the law to the jury? II. Whether there was prosecutorial misconduct either during voir dire or during closing argument? III. Whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the value of human life may include the quality of that life?