Opinion ID: 2160832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: personal belief in myers' guilt

Text: Myers also complains that, during closing and rebuttal arguments, the prosecutor expressed his personal belief that Myers had not killed Thomas in self-defense and that Myers was guilty of deliberately killing Thomas. The record reflects that the comments of the prosecutor in his initial closing argument were as follows: But he had an opportunity to avoid that situation, that is Myers did, and he didn't do it. He shot the man. I think he shot him in cold blood. And I think you must find him guilty.  (Emphasis supplied.) Myers also claims the following comments by the prosecutor in his rebuttal argument were objectionable: Now this is a difficult decision. It's before you now. I do not think he acted in self defense. My conclusion is that he deliberately killed this man.... We're not trying David Jones [a witness who was present at the scene of the killing], we're not determining whether he what he did or didn't do that night. We've got to decide whether what he told the officers and what he told you is supported by their conclusions. I believe it was. And I believe that Darren Myers killed Kervin Thomas that evening, and it was not required for his self-defense, and that therefore you must find him guilty. (Emphasis supplied.) There was no objection to the prosecutor's statements by the defense, nor was there a motion for mistrial. Myers first complained of the prosecutor's conduct in his appeal to this court. It is highly improper and generally prejudicial for a prosecuting attorney in a criminal case to declare to the jury his personal belief in the guilt of a defendant, unless such belief is given as a deduction from evidence. State v. Leonard, 196 Neb. 731, 246 N.W.2d 68 (1976); State v. Brooks, 189 Neb. 592, 204 N.W.2d 86 (1973). If we were to review the prosecutor's comments, we might well find them objectionable. However, any objection to the prosecutor's arguments made after the jury has been instructed and has retired is untimely and will not be reviewed on appeal. State v. Hernandez, 242 Neb. 78, 493 N.W.2d 181 (1992); State v. Garza, 241 Neb. 934, 492 N.W.2d 32 (1992). Because Myers failed to timely object to the prosecutor's closing remarks, his complaint in this court on that subject will not be reviewed.