Opinion ID: 2083898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Statement

Text: Banks next asserts that during the State's final argument, Banks made a timely objection when the prosecutor referred to Banks' testimony by saying, it is a story. Banks acknowledges that the trial court has wide discretion in determining what constitutes proper final argument, but claims that, here, the trial court abused that discretion because the prosecutor was essentially allowed to testify against Banks at trial. No transcript of the final argument was included in the record on appeal. Therefore, unless we find fundamental error, Banks has waived any error relating to final argument because the record lacks a transcript of final argument. Maisonet v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 1052, 1054. Because we cannot know the context of the prosecutor's remarks without the record, and because we conclude that the mere uttering of the words it's a story is not fundamental error, we reject Banks' argument.