Opinion ID: 1723925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecutor's Comments and Parties' Contentions

Text: Randy contends through this issue that the prosecutor violated his constitutional rights when he uttered allegedly improper and prejudical closing comments. The first comment referred to the minimal amount of money which investigators found on or near the victim's body. The prosecutor seems to have been inferring that Randy may have murdered Neil Smith for money. What do we know? We know four young people went to Grenada and one of them had money. Neil had money. David Bryan said Neil had been paid that day, got $125.00... . Now, on the way home, who wanted money from Neil? ... [A]ll the evidence indicates that Randy wanted money from Neil [allegedly for gas]. And Randy gets mad [because Neil at first refuses]... . Neil [then] offers him $3.00 so we know Neil has at least $3.00. Randy wants $5.00. You can deduce from your own common sense that Randy knows that Neil has at least $5.00 because Randy wants it. The point being that Randy wants the money. That is the point. Exhibit No. 11 shows you the only money recovered at or near the body of Neil Smith  see these few coins there? That's all the money that was recovered from the body of Neil Smith. Rec. Vol. IV, at 413-14. Upon objection by Randy, the trial judge admonished the jury to disregard the comments. Later, the prosecutor again commented on the minimal amount of money found on or near the victim's body and the inference which one can deduce from such evidence: Common sense. A logical deductible inference from the facts in this case. Whoever killed Neil Smith, took those dollar bills. Randy again objected, and the judge again admonished the jury to disregard the comments. Finally, Randy objected to the prosecutor's comment that Randy washed his car shortly after Neil's death. The judge sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the remark. Randy now contends that, despite the sustaining of the objections and admonishments to the jury to disregard same, the prejudice ... was insurmountable. Appellant's Brief at 5. The State of course disagrees and counters: (1) that the comments were not improper because they were based upon the evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom; and (2) that assuming the comments were improper, the judge's admonishments were wholly sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect.