Opinion ID: 1847235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred in failing to sustain defendant's motion for mistrial based on improper comment on the evidence.

Text: ¶ 28. Godbold argues that the trial judge made an improper comment on the evidence when he stated: There has been some proof and may be some more proof that some of them were [stolen]. However, upon a closer reading of the trial judge's entire statement, the alleged prejudicial error is nonexistent. The trial judge stated: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard testimony about some items that were taken from the home of Mr. Godbold. There is no allegation that they are stolen. There has been no proof and will be no proof, to my understanding, that all the items were stolen. There has been some proof and may be some more proof that some of them were. You are not to____ the fact that there is testimony elicited regarding these large number of items that were taken should in no way indicate to you anything other than that these items were taken and the reasoning for the law officers seizing them; the fact that they seized them proves absolutely nothing, but that it gave them a reason or the ability to search further to further their investigation. So, the fact that there is testimony given, you are not to infer that there is any other crime; in fact, there is no other crime charged of this man other than what's laid in the Indictment that is before you today.... ¶ 29. This Court has stated, [w]hen all instructions, read together, put governing principles of law to [the] jury, there is no error. Tillman v. State, 164 Miss. 100, 144 So. 234 (Miss.1932), see also Sumrall v. Mississippi Power Co., 693 So.2d 359 (Miss.1997). These instructions are correct and adequate when read in their entirety.