Opinion ID: 1884007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Object to Statements made by the Prosecutor

Text: ¶ 40. Golden points to several instances of trial counsel failing to object to certain statements made by the prosecutor during voir dire. First, Golden argues that defense counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's comment that in this case there isn't a consent issue, arguing that consent is a core issue of forcible rape. However, when read in full context, the prosecutor was merely making a distinction between statutory and forcible rape. Secondly, Golden argues that trial counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's statement that an eyewitness account would be beyond any doubt. Golden argues that this comment vouched for the witnesses in the case. Again, when read in context, the prosecutor was merely attempting to explain his beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof. ¶ 41. Golden has failed to demonstrate that his attorney's conduct was defective for failure to make these specific objections during voir dire. Furthermore, Golden has not shown how defense counsel's failure to object in these two instances prejudiced him in any way. This Court has found that strategy decisions, such as not objecting to a particular statement, are considered tactical, and will not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. Irby v. State, 893 So.2d 1042, 1048 (Miss. 2004).