Opinion ID: 1890530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether bolden's closing argument was proper.

Text: ¶ 22. Entergy claims that Bolden's closing arguments were wholly unsupported by facts in evidence and were designed to incite bias, passion, or prejudice on the part of the jury. This Court has continually held that counsel is afforded broad latitude in closing argument. Berry v. State, 703 So.2d 269, 281 (Miss. 1997). This latitude is set out by the Court in Nelms & Blum Co. v. Fink, 159 Miss. 372, 382-383, 131 So. 817, 820 (1930). However, an issue is waived on appeal where there was no contemporaneous objection. Russell v. State, 607 So.2d 1107, 1117 (Miss.1992). There was no objection made at trial by Entergy's trial counsel, Mr. Perkins. However, [i]n order to reverse under the plain error doctrine, the reviewing court must find both error and harm. Alpha Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Jackson, 801 So.2d 709, 727 (Miss.2001); Dobbins v. State, 766 So.2d 29, 31 (Miss.Ct.App.2000); Riggs v. State, 744 So.2d 365, 372 (Miss.Ct. App.1999). Since there was no objection made in this case, the error, if any, is harmless. ¶ 23. The Fifth Circuit has called the use of the closing arguments to bring before the jury damaging facts not in evidence and never established a particularly indefensible tactic. Edwards v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 512 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir.1975). The Fifth Circuit further held that where placing material facts not in evidence before the jury in final argument substantially prejudices a party, reversal is required. Id. at 285. ¶ 24. The statements that Entergy claims are in error here consist of the statement in closing that Bolden's knee is more at risk for arthritis. However, in Dr. Williams's testimony he stated that Bolden was more at risk to develop arthritis. Also, Entergy argues that mentioning Bolden's property damage to her car was error because this had been previously settled. This is harmless error. No amount was even mentioned regarding the value of the car. ¶ 25. Entergy further claims that it was error for Bolden's counsel to assert that Bolden suffers with every step. However, the jury was instructed that what the attorneys said was not evidence. The jurors had heard all of the evidence, including doctors' testimony, and could decipher that evidence. ¶ 26. Under the plain error doctrine, this is not clear error and certainly not harmful.