Opinion ID: 1102154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in overruling haggerty's objection to foster's closing argument on accident reconstruction.

Text: ¶ 39. In closing argument, Foster's counsel used paper cups to represent vehicles as he exhibited photographs C and D from Defendant's Exhibit 1. He argued that these photographs demonstrated that Haggerty had just entered the turn lane when the accident occurred because there was more damage to the left front side of her vehicle than to the right. He used the cups to represent the two automobiles and to show why the damage to the front left side of Haggerty's vehicle indicated that she was still in the process of entering the turn lane when the accident occurred. Therefore, he argued, Foster was not at fault because the accident was unavoidable. Haggerty's counsel objected, arguing that Foster's counsel is not an expert on accident reconstruction and since no expert testimony to that effect was produced at trial use of the cups was improper. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed the reconstruction argument. ¶ 40. Haggerty alleges this argument was improper. She cites Fielder v. Magnolia Beverage Co., 757 So.2d 925 (Miss. 1999), for the proposition that only a qualified accident reconstructionist may give opinions about the causation of an accident. She argues that without Foster's theory or evidence being proffered or supported by an accident reconstructionist expert (and it was not), Foster's counsel should not have been allowed to make such a reconstruction in closing argument. ¶ 41. Attorneys are allowed wide latitude in closing arguments. Holly v. State, 716 So.2d 979, 988 (Miss.1998); Wilcher v. State, 697 So.2d 1087, 1110 (Miss.1997). In addition, the court should also be very careful in limiting free play of ideas, imagery, and personalities of counsel in their argument to [a] jury. Ahmad v. State, 603 So.2d 843, 846 (Miss.1992). Any alleged improper comment must be viewed in context, taking the circumstances of the case into consideration. Id. The trial judge is in the best position to determine if an alleged objectionable remark has a prejudicial effect, Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1177 (Miss.1990), and a trial judge has wide discretion in controlling the remarks and argument of attorneys. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Layton, 353 So.2d 749, 754 (Miss. 1977). ¶ 42. The trial judge determined that the demonstration was permissible argument and noted that Haggerty's counsel could counter that with logic.... In his closing argument, Haggerty's counsel did indeed argue his own theory of how the accident occurred, including why the front left fender of Haggerty's car was more damaged. [5] Given the wide latitude afforded attorneys in closing argument and the discretion which trial judge's are required to exercise, no abuse of that discretion occurred here. Moreover, Haggerty has not demonstrated that allowing the reconstruction caused her prejudice. She rebutted the defense's explanation of the damage to her vehicle with her own explanation and the jury was allowed to decide which was more plausible. Absent a showing of abuse of discretion and prejudice, this Court will defer to the trial court's judgment. ¶ 43. This assignment is without merit.