Opinion ID: 2373626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Other alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct

Text: [¶ 32] The appellant raises a number of additional instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, including identifying witnesses as defense witnesses, speaking too loudly at side bar conferences in order to allow the jury to hear what was being said, eliciting victim impact testimony, and improper use of W.R.E. 404(b) evidence during closing argument. However, the appellant's arguments relating to these issues are deficient in a number of ways, including failing to make any cogent arguments as to the alleged misconduct, failing to cite to pertinent legal authority, and, most significantly, failing to demonstrate or even discuss, in most instances, how the alleged misconduct prejudiced the appellant. We have repeatedly held that we will not address issues that are unaccompanied by cogent argument or citation to pertinent legal authority. See Rolle, 2010 WY 100, ¶ 33, 236 P.3d at 273 (quoting Forbis, 2009 WY 41, ¶ 10, 203 P.3d at 424) (We have `consistently refused to consider claims not supported by cogent argument or citation to pertinent legal authority.'); see also Teniente, 2007 WY 165, ¶ 10, 169 P.3d at 520 ([T]he defendant bears the burden of proving prejudice relating to claims of prosecutorial misconduct.). Consequently, we will not further address these issues.