Opinion ID: 2553189
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statement About Possibility of Swann Rolling Over

Text: Appellant challenges another statement made by the prosecution in its initial closing argument. In referring to a photo depicting the positioning of Swann's body, the prosecution states, Now, of course, Mr. Swann was not in that position when he was shot and died. . . . We know that . . . the paramedics had moved him and certainly we know that after he was shot it was three to five minutes before he lost consciousness. He could be moving around, roll over, anything like that could have happened. The trial court determined that, even though no one may have seen [Swann] roll over, the prosecution's argument was not based on facts not in evidence. We agree. The prosecution's statement was based on Dr. Pierre-Louis's testimony that the fatal gun shot wound entered Swann's chest and exited out his back, where the exit wound exhibited shoring, which indicated that Swann's back was against a hard surface when he was shot, and that Swann would have had three to five minutes of consciousness after the fatal shot. Mr. Bruchey, a ballistics expert for the defense, testified that the hard object that caused the shoring could have been either the building wall or the ground. Sgt. Johnson testified that Swann was originally lying face down when he arrived. The theory that Swann was shot on the ground and then could have rolled over reconciles evidence that Swann was shot in his chest while against a hard surface, had three to five minutes of consciousness and was subsequently found by medical personnel lying face-down. The prosecution's theory is thus supported by rational inferences from the evidence and did not extend into impermissible speculation. [7] See Clayborne, supra, 751 A.2d at 969.