Opinion ID: 1671765
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper, Prejudicial Comments During Closing Argument

Text: ¶ 151. During closing argument, in reference to the defense's cross-examination of Peggy Morgan on her history of family problems, the District Attorney made the following comments: Whenever a defense attorney says, and gets sugar-tongued, Now, I don't wanna hurt your feelings, and I  I don't mean to ask this, but I gotta know, grab your throat because he's fixing to slit it... . And he would do that to get a back-shooting murderer turned loose. The defense objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing the prosecutor was improperly denigrating defense counsel. The trial court overruled the motion and instructed the prosecutor to move along. The prosecutor later stated, That's the reason people won't  like Mark Reiley won't come forward because of what happened to Ms. Morgan. The defense again objected, which objection was overruled. The prosecutor later argued, Don't let him walk out of here and continue to brag about it, and say, `I got twelve more. Twelve more. And I fooled them. And I can say it to whoever I want to.' After another defense objection was overruled, the prosecutor continued: I can say it to whoever I want to. I've already proven that. I can say it to IRS workers; I can say it to FAA workers. I can say it to FBI informants. I can say it to whoever I want to, because they can't convict me. I am Byron De La Beckwith from Greenwood, Mississippi, and they can't convict me, and I'll just brag all I want to, just like I have in the past, because, remember this, a verdict of not guilty gives him the absolute freedom to say whatever he wants. The defense again objected, which objection was overruled. Beckwith argues these comments were highly prejudicial and warrant a reversal. ¶ 152. We have always allowed counsel considerable latitude in the argument of cases. He may draw whatever deductions seem to him proper from these facts, so long as he does not use violent and abusive language, and even in many cases invectives may be justified and even called for... . Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 900 (Miss. 1989) (quoting Nelms & Blum Co. v. Fink, 159 Miss. 372, 131 So. 817 (1930)), rev'd on other grounds, 498 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). With regard to Ms. Morgan, the prosecutor apparently was trying to bolster her credibility in light of the defense's vigorous cross-examination of her. As for the comments regarding Beckwith, the prosecutor was drawing the jury's attention to the abundant evidence that Beckwith had bragged about killing Medgar Evers. Although some of the prosecutor's comments may have bordered on impropriety, the question on appeal is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument of the prosecuting attorney is to create an unjust prejudice against the accused as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694, 701 (Miss. 1988). We cannot say, in light of the overwhelming evidence against Beckwith, that the jury's verdict was likely influenced by any prejudice that may have been occasioned by the prosecutors remarks.