Opinion ID: 2390511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prosecutor's Closing Argument Remarks

Text: The appellant next alleges error by the circuit court in failing to grant the appellant relief based on allegedly misleading and prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor during his closing argument. According to the appellant, the trial court should have instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's remarks. In his closing argument, the prosecutor commented on testimony that the appellant wanted to call the police on Mr. Starkey and Mr. Caldwell instead of attack them. The prosecutor stated: There was some mention made with regard to calling the police with regard to someone stealing pot. Do we really believe that anyone who is guilty of the crime of cultivation of marijuana, a felony, is going to call the police and say hey, somebody's stealing my dope? The State would submit to you that is not within the realm of possibility. The appellant contends that these comments were designed to mislead the jury because the appellant was never charged with or convicted of the felony of marijuana cultivation. The appellant further argues that the trial court's failure to take curative measures to correct the prosecutor's improper remarks prejudiced the appellant. This Court held in Syllabus Point 6 of State v. Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 456 S.E.2d 469 (1995), that, Four factors are taken into account in determining whether improper prosecutorial comment is so damaging as to require reversal: (1) the degree to which the prosecutor's remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) absent the remarks, the strength of competent proof introduced to establish the guilt of the accused; and (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters. Application of these factors to the instant case leads this Court to concluded that the prosecutor's comment, even if improper, was harmless. First, the prosecutor did not say that the appellant had been convicted of the felony of marijuana cultivation and it is unlikely that the jury understood the comment as such. Instead, the jury would have understood the comment as a reference to the appellant's marijuana cultivation, a fact which had been testified to by three witnesses. Second, the prosecutor's remark was isolated. Third, absent the prosecutor's remark, there was more than sufficient competent evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. Finally, the comment was not deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters. [17] Instead, the prosecutor was addressing the absurdity of a claim that the appellant wanted to call the police on Mr. Starkey and Mr. Caldwell for stealing from his and Mr. Mosley's marijuana patch. [18] D.