Opinion ID: 1868654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Other Prosecution Comments Williams Deems Inflammatory

Text: Prosecution statements with which Williams now takes issue for the first time on appeal are as follows: if the jury had the guts to impose the death penalty; [i]f this man doesn't receive the death penalty in this type of case, then the Legislature ought to take it off the books; and reference to Williams as an animal. Williams also accuses the prosecutor of first saying he had gotten the death penalty in prosecutions before, and then later in his argument, claimed to have never asked for the death penalty. However, Williams raises these issues for the first time on appeal and is procedurally barred. See Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228 (Miss. 1995); Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263 (Miss. 1994); Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148, 1154 (Miss. 1992); Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss. 1987). Alternatively, without waiving the procedural bar, we examine the merits of Williams' assertions. Wide latitude is generally available to counsel to argue his case on closing argument. Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1245 (1995). None of these comments amount to reversible error. Concerning the prosecutor's statement about his asking juries for the death penalty, the State refuted the claim by Williams that the prosecutor attempted to mislead the jury when the State explained that the misstatement by the prosecutor was corrected in his next sentence, which Williams did not include in his brief. The correction was, I have had capital murders where I did not ask for the death penalty. (emphasis added). We find no merit in this assertion.