Opinion ID: 1094862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Comment on Cole's Failure to Testify

Text: Cole claims the prosecutor directly commented on his failure to testify during the guilt-finding phase of his trial for capital murder when he/she stated: That's five hundred dollars. Five hundred dollars. And he hadn't given you any explanation where that came from. And the reason he hadn't is because he can't. Cole also says the prosecutor made a second impermissible comment concerning the nonproduction of bloody clothing. Finally, Cole argues the prosecutor improperly commented on his appearance at trial. Not only was there no objection raised during trial concerning these comments, no claim was raised on direct appeal bringing these issues to this Court's attention. Nor did this Court invoke its plain error rule. Because these claims could and should have been raised at trial and on direct appeal, they are procedurally barred by the doctrine of waiver or forfeiture. In addition, this Court addressed the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in its written opinion, holding specifically that claims without contemporaneous objection were barred. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d at 369. Heightened appellate scrutiny in death penalty cases does not require abandonment of our contemporaneous objection rule which applies with equal force to death cases. For many years we have held that trial errors cannot be raised in this Court for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Jefferson v. State, 386 So.2d 200 (Miss. 1980). In Leverett v. State, 197 So.2d 889, 890 (Miss. 1967), this Court, quoting from Collins v. State, 173 Miss. 179, 180, 159 So. 865 (1935), stated the following: The Supreme Court is a court of appeals, it has no original jurisdiction; it can only try questions that have been tried and passed upon by the court from which the appeal is taken. Whatever remedy appellant has is in the trial court, not in this court. This court can only pass on the question after the trial court has done so. This Court explained the underlying bases for the existence of a contemporaneous objection rule in Oates v. State, 421 So.2d 1025, 1030 (1982): There are three basic considerations which underlie the rule regarding specific objections. It avoids costly new trial. Boring v. State, 253 So.2d 251 (Miss. 1971). It allows the offering party an opportunity to obviate the objection. Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545 (Miss. 1882). Lastly, a trial court is not put in error unless it had an opportunity to pass on the question. Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16, 143 So. 479 (1932). Accordingly, the claims in his petition for post-conviction relief are barred, implicitly if not directly, by the doctrine of res judicata found in Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3).