Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Threatening Witnesses:

Text: ¶ 114. The following exchange occurred during the closing statements during the sentencing phase regarding Burns having threatened witnesses: [MR. GEDDIE:] ... For example, is going to rob someone a mitigating circumstance? I submit not. Is murdering someone a mitigating circumstance? I'll submit not at all. Is stabbing a mitigating circumstance? I'll submit that is not a mitigating circumstance. Threats against witnesses  MR. ELLIS: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. GEDDIE: (Continuing) Q. Threats against witnesses, certainly that's not mitigating ... ¶ 115. Burns contends that these comments were improper because these facts were not contained within the record. There was, however, evidence contained within the record to maintain Burns' threats against witnesses. For example, Phillip Hale, during his testimony, stated that Burns threatened to kill Janie Taylor if she told anyone that he killed McBride. Furthermore, in one of the letters Burns wrote to Kohlheim, he stated, I'm always thinking how and hell I'm going to escape and kill the MF'ing punks that told on me. ¶ 116. Further, this Court said in Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497 (Miss.1997), [c]ounsel is allowed considerable latitude in the argument of cases, and is limited not only to the facts presented in evidence, but also to deductions and conclusions he may reasonably draw therefrom, and the application of the law to the facts. Id. at 506 ( citing Ivy v. State, 589 So.2d 1263, 1266 (Miss.1991); Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694, 701-02 (Miss. 1988)).