Opinion ID: 2360143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements By The Prosecutor

Text: The defendant next argues that the trial justice committed prejudicial error in denying his objections to statements made by the prosecutor in final arguments to the jury. The prosecutor said in his closing statement: Let me point out that the savage beating that Dennis Mulhern received there in the parking lot in Bristol, Rhode Island, the kicking, the stomping, the punching about the face, and Richard Rose said when he was lifted up he appeared to be  I believe the word was `dazed'. And who wouldn't be? And as a result of that beating, and another beating, Dennis Mulhern died. And who told us about another beating that took place? Richard Rose did. And what beating did he tell us about? The beating at the East Coast M.F. Club in Providence on Eddy Street, which we saw the exterior of several days ago, and at that point do you recall  . The defendant contends that the statement was not accurate, and that the trial justice should have cautioned the jury that the statement was inaccurate. There is no precise formula to delineate the proper bounds of the prosecutor's argument to the jury. State v. Mancini, 108 R.I. 261, 274 A.2d 742 (1971); State v. Peters, 82 R.I. 292, 107 A.2d 428 (1954). He is, however, allowed considerable latitude in argument as long as he stays within the evidence and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Mancini, supra . Here the record indicates that Richard Rose testified as to a statement he heard Moss make to Euart regarding an injury to Euart's hand incurred while attempting to hit Mulhern, and that this statement, plus the testimony of FBI Agent, Cornelius G. McWright, that a lab report of an analysis of a piece of wood paneling from the E.C.M.F. clubhouse indicated that the stains found on the paneling were human blood, was enough to warrant a fair implication that a beating took place at the Providence clubhouse. We therefore conclude that the prosecutor's statement was not improper or prejudicial. The defendant next argues that the reference by the prosecutor to Hell's Angels implied guilt by association and was therefore prejudicial. We do not reach that conclusion. As we read the record, we are satisfied that the prosecutor in referring to the Hell's Angels was merely summarizing in a conclusory manner the testimony given by the witnesses, and it cannot be said to be so irrelevant and extraneous as to have inflamed the passions of the jury and prejudiced defendant. The defendant's allegations that the prosecutor's reference to the character of Euart's wife resulted in prejudice to him is without merit since he has not indicated specifically what the remarks were or wherein they were prejudicial.