Opinion ID: 1771162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the trial court err in allowing improper closing argument by the district attorney?

Text: Counsel for Mr. Alexander divides this proposition into three distinct areas: (1) Comment on failure to testify; (2) Requesting female jurors to place themselves in the victim's position; (3) Argument regarding facts not in evidence. In answer to the first argument, comment on failure to testify, this Court acknowledges the fact that the prosecution is not permitted to comment on the fact that an accused has exercised his constitutional right not to take the witness stand. See West v. State, 485 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1985). However, the Court contends that the prosecution did not violate this rule. From the record, it is obvious that the prosecutor was simply summing up the defendant's statements. The second area of which Alexander complains is the district attorney's candor in asking female jurors to forget their oaths and apply a golden rule type analysis. Therein, Alexander correctly points out the well settled rule concerning this type of golden rule type analysis. See Holifield v. State, 275 So.2d 851 (Miss. 1973). In answer to this accusation, this Court points to the procedure followed by the judge below. The Court sustained defense counsel's objection and admonished the jury to disregard the remark. Therein, the trial court's action averted any possible prejudice. See Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss. 1985). The last area that Alexander addresses is the State's comment, Thank God we didn't have a murder. With this statement in mind, counsel for Alexander asserts that the district attorney injected other possible crimes into the argument. To answer this argument, this Court relies upon the reasoning in McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss. 1987). Therein the circuit judge is in the best position for determining the prejudicial effect of an objectionable argument. The lower court judge obviously felt that these statements were harmless at most. Reviewing arguments from both sides, this Court holds that no reversible error occurred in this trial and affirms the conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.