Opinion ID: 1919690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The prosecutor made improper comments about defense counsel protecting their client's constitutional rights.

Text: Davis argues that the prosecutor committed reversible error when he made highly derogatory remarks about defense counsel's attempts to preserve Davis' rights. Davis assigns as error the following closing argument made by the prosecution during the guilt phase of the trial. MR. PETERS: And then they talk to you about the identification of these young girls that came into the courtroom. On one of them he asked the little girl, he said, Well, didn't you look at a picture of this guy before you came in here? And isn't that how you know who he is, because you looked at that picture? Yes, I looked at a picture; but, no, I would have been able to have picked him out anyway. And so Bobby got up and got that lineup photograph and said, Is this the picture you looked at and picked him out of? Yes, it is. We offer this into evidence, Your Honor, to show what she looked at. Objection. That doesn't look like what he looks like now, Your Honor. BY MR. COXWELL: Your Honor, I object to  I object to him trying to denigrate our job as  as Mr. Davis' attorney. BY THE COURT: Overruled. The prosecutor made this comment in response to the following comment made during closing argument by Davis: And you've seen State's Exhibit whatever number it was that Mr. Delaughter referred to and he asked you to look at and decide for yourself. Well, the honest  an honest statement was made by one of these witnesses. She told you before she came into this courtroom she looked at these pictures to make sure she would know which one was the Defendant. Clearly, Davis invited the prosecutor's response when, during closing argument, he called into question whether one of the State's witnesses could actually identify Davis. The prosecution responded to this invitation and argued that the witness was certainly capable of identifying Davis. Accordingly, this comment is not the type of comment that would warrant reversal under Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951 (Miss. 1992). Therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.