Opinion ID: 1678008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the court erred in denying the appellants' motion for mistrial based on the remarks of the prosecutor in closing arguments.

Text: ¶ 13. During closing arguments, the prosecution made the following statement: Randy Cox and Eddie Shorty committed, short of murder, what I consider to be the most invasive violent crime that could be committed against a human being. After closing arguments, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, which was denied by the circuit court. ¶ 14. The State argues that Cox and Shorty failed to object to the statement at the time it was made and that a contemporaneous objection is needed to preserve the issue for appeal. It contends that, had the objection been raised, the judge could have addressed the statement, and could have admonished the jury, if he found that to be necessary. It is the duty of a trial counsel, if he deems opposing counsel overstepping the wide range of authorized argument, to promptly make objections and insist upon a ruling by the trial court. Brewer v. State, 725 So.2d 106, 131 (Miss.1998). ¶ 15. The test to determine if an argument by the prosecution requires reversal is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument created an unjust prejudice against the accused as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694, 701 (Miss.1988). Having been denied the opportunity to correct the error, if any, the granting of a motion for a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Bass v. State, 597 So.2d 182, 191 (Miss.1992). Cox and Shorty have not shown that the court abused its discretion, and this issue therefore lacks merit.