Opinion ID: 484754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: misstatement by prosecutor

Text: 95 Appellant Champion also argues that the trial court erred in failing to correct an alleged misstatement of the evidence in the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument. At the end of the government's rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor suggested to the jury that Stan, who had to support his family on a job paying $250 a week, would not have been able to rent a land cruiser for $2000 and take his family and his babysitter on a vacation unless he had additional income coming in from his drug-smuggling activities. 26 Appellant objected to the prosecutor's argument because it allegedly implied that Stan paid for the land cruiser in cash. In fact, Stan used a credit card for the purchase and did not have to pay the bill until about one month later. After appellant's counsel was unable to locate the credit card receipt, the court overruled the objection and instructed the jury that the objection, while I am sure it was well innocently made with good intention, was an incorrect objection. There is no reason to, or no basis to support the nature of the objection that was made, and I am overruling it. When the prosecutor had finished his closing argument and the judge prepared for recess, counsel located the credit card receipt evincing the fact that Stan had charged the land cruiser rental fee. The court decided that it was too late to allow the receipt into evidence. 96 Appellant's argument is without merit because the prosecutor's comments were not improper. The prosecutor's statement drew a permissible inference from the evidence in this case. He merely pointed out that Stan incurred a financial obligation that would appear to have been more than he could afford at that point in time. The prosecutor did not argue that Stan paid in cash. Moreover, appellant had the credit card documentation throughout the trial but he failed to proffer the evidence until the evidence and arguments had closed.