Opinion ID: 1723757
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to matters outside the record.

Text: ¶ 52. In closing argument in the guilt phase, the prosecutor was attempting to connect a pair of shoes and a pair of jeans with Chase because of the argument that the blood on the clothes was proof that the person wearing them fired the fatal shot. Counsel for Chase objected, stating that there had been no evidence connecting these items with Chase. The circuit court stated that argument was allowed on anything that may have occurred based upon the evidence. ¶ 53. Chase argues the well-settled rule that counsel should not argue facts that lack support in the record. However, it is also well settled that counsel can suggest evidentiary conclusions that may be supported by expert testimony or that may be within the common sense abilities of the jury. Such was the case here where counsel argued that the person who fired the shot that killed Elmer Hart would have his blood splattered on his clothes. We find that counsel was not ineffective for failure to object to the specific argument quoted here, particularly where he had already previously objected to the same or similar argument.