Opinion ID: 1948614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: should gray's conviction be reversed because of the prejudicial closing argument of the prosecutor?

Text: The record reflects that Gray made a contemporaneous objection to only one of the remarks complained of on appeal. It is as follows: And tonight you are the law in Yazoo County, Mississippi, and please don't forget that. MR. CONERLY: I object to that, Your Honor. That's an improper statement and would ask the Court to admonish the jury to disregard it. They have to decide the facts in this case only. THE COURT: I'll note your objection, Counsel. Continuing this line of argument, the prosecuting attorney remarked as follows: MR. MAYFIELD: I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. You are the law in Yazoo County tonight. You decide what kind of conduct is going to be tolerated here. No further objections were made. Contemporaneous objections to allegedly erroneous comments of the prosecuting attorney in closing arguments must be made or the point is waived. Shavers v. State, 455 So.2d 1299, 1302 (Miss. 1984). See also Baker v. State, 327 So.2d 288, 292-93 (Miss. 1976) (reason for the contemporaneous objection rule is so that the Court may, when possible, correct the error with proper instructions to the jury.) However, if the argument is so inflammatory that the trial judge should have objected on his own motion the point may be considered. Griffin v. State, 292 So.2d 159, 163 (Miss. 1974). None of the remarks complained of were so inflammatory that the trial judge should have acted on his own motion. As to the comment properly objected to, the Court in Clemons v. State, 320 So.2d 368 (Miss. 1975), said the following: The purpose of the closing argument before a jury is to enlighten the jury. It is the duty of the district attorney to fairly sum up and point out the points presented by the state on which the prosecution contends a verdict of guilty is proper. .. . The right of argument contemplates liberal freedom of speech and range of discussion confined only to bounds of logic and reason; and if counsel's argument is within the limits of proper debate it is immaterial whether it is sound or unsound, or whether he employs wit, invective, and illustration therein. Moreover, figurative speech is legitimate if there is evidence on which it may be founded. Exaggerated statements and hasty observations are often made in the heat of debate, which, although not legitimate, are generally disregarded by the court, because in its opinion they are harmless. There are, however, certain well-established limits beyond which counsel is forbidden to go; he must confine himself to the facts introduced in evidence and to the fair and reasonable deductions and conclusions to be drawn therefrom, and to the application of the law, as given by the court, to the facts. ... . [23A C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 1090, at 128-29 (1961).] Id. at 371 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The prosecutor's argument was an incorrect statement of law, but as such it does not exceed the bounds of proper closing argument. The prosecutor did not present evidence that was outside of the record, nor did he appeal to the passions or prejudices of the jury or argue any impermissible factor. There is no merit to this assignment.