Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Whether appellants were deprived of a fair trial by the prosecution's reference to Doc Caston's failure to make a post-arrest statement.

Text: ś 97. The brothers argue that they did not have a fair trial. They allege that the prosecution repeatedly made reference to Doc's failure to make a post-arrest statement. This Court has set out the parameters concerning any comments pertaining to a defendant's post-arrest silence as follows: In Johnson v. State, 596 So.2d 865 (Miss.1992), this Court held that the prosecutors's repeated comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence, after receiving Miranda warnings, [FN4. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)] violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as held in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). Johnson, 596 So.2d at 868-869. Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824, 844-45 (1995). ś 98. In Dunaway v. State, 551 So.2d 162, 163 (Miss.1989), this Court announced the test to be used to determine if there was improper comment by the prosecutor: The test to determine if an improper argument by a prosecutor requires reversal is whether the natural and probable effect of the prosecuting attorney's improper argument created unjust prejudice against the accused resulting in a decision influenced by prejudice. ś 99. On direct examination of Doc by defense counsel, Doc stated the following: Q. Have you ever had an opportunity, or did you ever avail yourself the opportunity to tell the story that you just told here today? A. No. My lawyer which was William Barbour which I had went to a fellow that worked with him, and he advised me thatâ The State: Objection, Your Honor, to hearsay advise. . . . . Q. (By [defense counsel]) Okay. I have some information that you made some oral statements while you were at the jailhouse. Do you remember saying anything at that time? A. Yes, I do. Q. You said something about Harold Crimm and you moving Rainey Pool; is that correct? A. No, sir. Q. What did you say back then about moving Mr. Pool? A. What did I say back then? Q. Yes. You testified today that you moved Mr. Pool. A. That's right. Q. But this old statement here says Harold Crimm and you moved him. A. No, sir. Q. Did you sign anything back then? A. No, sir, I've never signed anything. I was just talking to the sheriff. I think I was talking to the sheriff. Q. And made these statements? A. Yes, we was just talking. Q. Okay. Have you ever seen before this trial got started and your arrest, had you ever seen this written statement (indicating)? A. (Witness examining document) No, sir, I have not. ś 100. On cross-examination, the prosecution then questioned Doc about his version of events concerning Pool's death: Q. You talked to Sheriff Huffstickler on April the 14th of 1970? A. I did. Q. The date that's according toâ if that's who you talked to according to the notes in the police file it was 4/14/70. A. Well, it was two or three dates later. Q. Well, that's two days after the killing, the date the body was found, recovered from the river the day you talked to him. And you know what you said? A. What did I say? Q. Doc stated he looked out the window, saw a Negro man taking something out of his truck. He went out there. The Negro cursed him. He stated that he hit the Negro and knocked him down. Doc and Harold Crimm drug the Negro to the corner of the building. Doc stated he went back inside. Now, that's all you told him about that at that time? A. I was just talking to the sheriff. Q. Right. Well you, according to what you have told this jury today, had witnessed a brutal violent murder, a man stomping Rainey Pool in the throat and inflicting injuries. And you were sitting there trying to get everybody back, trying to stop Dennis Newton from shooting him, trying to stop anybody fromâ your brother, you grabbed your brother and tried to stop him from killing him. You were trying to get everybody back, but here's your opportunity to right the wrong that you had seen and to stopâ to take care of what you had seen. And what did you tell him. You didn't tell him any of that, did you? A. Yes, I did. Q. Well, where is it? A. I didn't make statement. Q. Yes, why didn't you? A. Because my lawyer advised me not to make a statement. Q. You didn't have a lawyer when you made this. A. Yes, I did have a lawyer. William Barbour. Q. On the 14th of April when this was madeâ A. I had a lawyer before I was arrested. Q. Oh, so youâ what, were you planning on Mr. Pool dying out there? Did you ask him in advance? A. No, sir, I wasn't. The Defense: Your Honor, he can't question him exercising his rights, and that's what he's trying to inject into this case. The Court: Overruled Q. My question is you didn't talk to him before you killing Rainey Pool, did you? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. Okay. And did you tell anybody this story that you've told the jury today. In fact, you know, in listening to you it almost appeared to me that you were trying to convince the jury that you and Rainey Pool were friends. Were y'all friends? A. No, we weren't friends. Q. Well, how come when you told the sheriff, you couldn't even call his name? How come you referred to him as, I hit the Negro and knocked him down? A. Well, Negro then. Q. Harold and I drug the Negro to the corner of the building. A. We did noâ me and Joe Watson did not drag him. Q. I didn't say Joe, I said Harold. A. I didn't say that. Is that signed? Q. No, it's not signed? A. Well, no, that's not signed because I didn't say that. Q. Okay. You're just saying you're like Newton, that everybody wrote anything down about what you said, said it wrong. A. I'm not like no one but myself. ś 101. Clearly, the defense opened the door and invited questioning of Doc about alleged statements given in 1970. A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself. Singleton v. State, 518 So.2d 653, 655 (Miss.1988) (citations omitted). See also Evans v. State, 547 So.2d 38, 40 (Miss.1989); Edwards v. State, 441 So.2d 84, 90 (Miss.1983). Furthermore, the prosecution was questioning Doc about inconsistencies in the testimony. The defense disputes this however and states that Doc's testimony was only inconsistent as to Crimm's participation in events. ś 102. The brothers also raise a few other times that the prosecution commented on whether the trial was the first time in which Doc told his version of events. However, the record reveals that the brothers did not object to any of the other comments. Accordingly, this Court need not address issues that are not objected to and preserved for appeal. Failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives this issue for appeal purposes. Gatlin v. State, 724 So.2d 359, 369 (Miss. 1998). If no contemporaneous objection is made, the error, if any, is waived. Walker v. State, 671 So.2d 581, 597 (Miss. 1995) (citing Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1270 (Miss.1994)); Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427, 439 (Miss.1983). An appellate court is under no obligation to review an assignment of error when an objection was not made or when an objection was untimely. Carr v. State, 655 So.2d at 832. This issue is without merit.