Opinion ID: 1769389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue 2: Whether a Mistrial Should Have Been Granted in View of the Prosecutor's Allegedly-Improper Comments?

Text: During closing argument, defense counsel commented on Wanda's claim that her husband, Michael Earley, coerced her into sexually battering her son: We're talking about a man who [Wanda's] living with, married to, that's obviously a perverted man, a man that is aroused by unnatural sex acts, a man who is sexually aroused by beating her and beating these children, who is forceably having sex with her, against her will... . Vol. II, at 205. The State rebutted by thrice referring to Wanda as a pervert. The first reference entailed the following comment: Michael Earley has been called a pervert and he may be. Wanda Earley, you're a pervert too. Id. at 208. The second reference entailed the following: You've got a woman who came up here and cried like a baby on direct examination. Sympathy was bleeding down her cheeks, and yet when I started asking her questions, she cut it off. Because she hadn't rehearsed that. And you saw a woman with a cold look on her face, a woman who stared blankly and a woman who is a pervert. Id. at 209. Finally, the State commented: Mrs. Earley, you are a pervert. You are also guilty of sexual battery to your son, and John is the victim here and let's not forget who the victim is. Id. at 211. Wanda now contends that these references to her as a pervert were improper and should result in a reversal.
This Court rejects Wanda's contention on procedural grounds. Restated, Wanda is procedurally barred from asserting her contention because she wholly failed to object to any of the three references at the trial level. Accord May v. State, 569 So.2d 1188, 1190 (Miss. 1990); Dunaway v. State, 551 So.2d 162, 164 (Miss. 1989); Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 483 (Miss. 1988); Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976, 984 (Miss. 1988); Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1317, 1333 (Miss. 1987); Burney v. State, 515 So.2d 1154, 1157 (Miss. 1987); Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 208-08 (Miss. 1985); Wilks v. State, 408 So.2d 68, 69 (Miss. 1981). In sum, this Court affirms on this issue.