Opinion ID: 1957350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the cumulative errors denied the defendant a fair trial.

Text: ¶ 45. Finally, Glasper asserts that even if we should find that none of his numerous alleged errors, when standing alone, would warrant reversal, the cumulative prejudicial effect of these non-reversible errors, when considered together, require reversal. Glasper cites one case in support of this proposition  Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 142 (Miss.1991). In Hansen, a death penalty case, we stated: [H]ansen cities our familiar rule which goes back at least to Russell v. State, 185 Miss. 464, 469 189 So. 90, 91 (1939), which held: It is true that not one of these errors, when considered separately and apart from the others, is sufficient to justify a reversal of the case, but when they are considered as a whole it is ou[r] view that they resulted in the appellant being denied a fair trial.... This rule has been recognized in numerous later cases, e.g., Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 553 (Miss.1990); Shell v. State, 554 So.2d at 906; Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 939 (Miss.1986); Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 810 (Miss.1984). 592 So.2d at 142. Unquestionably, this cumulative-effect-of-error rule applies to capital and non-capital cases as well. As an aside, the term capital case is sometimes mistakenly believed to apply only to death-penalty cases; however, a capital case as defined by statute is one which involves a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment. Miss.Code Ann. § 1-3-4 (Rev.2005). Glasper's case was tried as a death penalty case; however, since the jury could not unanimously agree on the punishment upon his conviction of capital murder, the trial judge sentenced Glasper to a term of life imprisonment as required by statute. Certainly we may consider this cumulative-effect-of-error issue, whether Glasper's case is described as a death penalty or non-death penalty case, or a capital or non-capital case. See Byrom, 863 So.2d at 846-47. ¶ 46. We have already determined that there is no error in the record requiring reversal. Any such errors as may be revealed in the record are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In Byrom, we clarified our position regarding the cumulative effect of error by stating: What we wish to clarify here today is that upon appellate review of cases in which we find harmless error or any error which is not specifically found to be reversible in and of itself, we shall have the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether such error or errors, although not reversible when standing alone, may when considered cumulatively require reversal because of the resulting cumulative prejudicial effect. Id. at 847. We find upon a meticulous review of the record that not only were there no individual reversible errors committed during the trial, the cumulative effect of any harmless errors committed during this trial was not such that it deprived Glasper of a fundamentally fair and impartial trial. Thus, we find that since there was no reversible error in any part.... there is no reversible error to the whole. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 136 (Miss.1987). This issue is, therefore, without merit.