Opinion ID: 1058473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: comments during closing argument about society

Text: In a separate assignment of error partially related to his arguments on the Prison Expert Motion, Porter contends that the circuit court erred during the penalty phase of the trial when it made prejudicial comments and intemperate curative instructions. Specifically, Porter argues the circuit court erred by making prejudicial comments concerning the definition of `society' during defense counsel's closing argument; by stating prejudicial, intemperate, and one-sided `curative' mid-argument instructions on this point; and by denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial following this incident. The record shows that the circuit court interrupted Porter's counsel during closing argument in order to instruct the jury that society meant [e]verybody, anywhere, anyplace, anytime in response to comments from counsel that society meant prison society. When Porter's counsel again made similar remarks, a discussion at the bench occurred which led the court to comment to the jury that society was a definitional word that was not complex and pretty simple to understand. At no point during either interruption did Porter's counsel object to the court's comments. At the conclusion of his closing arguments, Porter's counsel moved for a mistrial based on the court's comments, which motion the court denied. The next day, Porter filed a written mistrial motion, which the court also denied. Porter contends that the court's comments violated his Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present a summation of the evidence to the jury and denied him a fair opportunity to rebut the Commonwealth's allegation that he would be a continuing threat to society. Porter maintains that the court's comments prejudiced him as the jury could have interpreted the comments as a form of rebuttal from the court in which the court appeared to agree with the Commonwealth's contention that Porter was a continuing threat to society. We do not consider the merits of Porter's contentions because the record shows that he failed to timely object to any of the circuit court's comments. Rule 5:25. See also Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 774, 232 S.E.2d 778, 781 (1977) (citing Russo v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 251, 256-57, 148 S.E.2d 820, 824-25 (1966)) (finding that an objection must be made at the time words are spoken and the objection is waived if not timely made).