Opinion ID: 1330634
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Argument of Commonwealth's Attorney.

Text: The defendant contends that the prosecuting attorney misspoke the law in his closing argument because he did not state the Virginia rule that all murder is inferentially of the second degree. As we have said heretofore, the only issue before the jury was whether the defendant was guilty of capital murder or first-degree murder. We conclude that the prosecutor's argument was proper and within the framework of issues before the jury.
Justus argues that the trial court improperly refused his motion to grant a mistrial, made on the ground the Commonwealth's Attorney's rebuttal argument was prejudicial. During cross-examination of the forensic serologist, the defense counsel asked whether she had tested Mr. Moses and could include or exclude him as a possible source of the seminal fluid found in Mrs. Moses. The witness stated Mr. Moses had not been tested. During closing argument, the defense repeated that Mr. Moses had not been tested. In rebuttal, the Commonwealth's Attorney asked the jury to [t]hink ... for a moment about the defense's suggestion that Mr. Moses had sexual intercourse with his wife after she had been murdered by Justus. The record indicates that counsel objected to the argument only after the jury retired, seeking a mistrial because an admonition to the jury could not correct the alleged error. The trial court refused the motion for mistrial, ruling the argument was proper under the circumstances. We agree with the trial court.