Opinion ID: 196070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Matters Dehors the Record.

Text: 44 Appellant maintains that, during the summation, the prosecutor referred to matters not in evidence. Specifically, the prosecutor gave a less than completely accurate account of the prefatory conversation between appellant and Lynch on January 29. Appellant greeted Lynch, so the prosecutor said, by imploring: Maestro, show me how it's done. The prosecutor added: We know that Maestro is Mr. Lynch's nickname. Why? Because he plays the organ in his father's church. Warming to this theme, the prosecutor reiterated the point. He told the jury that, as the two men walked into the UST branch, appellant again said: Maestro ... show me the ropes. 45 There was, in fact, no evidence of Lynch's nickname and no evidence that appellant made a request to be shown the ropes as the robbers entered the bank. Withal, there was no contemporaneous objection, and these canards scarcely justify reversal under the plain error doctrine. Given that Lynch admitted to his vocation as a bank robber, his nickname was wholly irrelevant to the case. Moreover, the prosecutor gave an innocent explanation of the moniker and appellant's own lawyer twice referred to Lynch in front of the jury as Maestro. As to the second misstatement, there was evidence that appellant made the request (show me the ropes) previously on the day of the robbery and on at least one earlier occasion. In other words, the substance of the prosecutor's statement was true (although the timing was awry). 46 On whole-record review, we conclude without serious question that the allusions to matters dehors the record were benign. Reversal is totally unwarranted. 47