Opinion ID: 1518209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: prosecutor's misconduct

Text: Bonds contends that the prosecutor's remarks in his opening statement and closing argument were so inflammatory and prejudicial that he was denied a fair trial. In his opening statement, the prosecutor stated: But Kim [the youngest daughter] finally had enough and early, early this year, after this last episode on the 26th when he hurt her and frightened her so badly, that she went to school and she confided what happened, what was being done to her and had been done to her at school an officer of the school, a teacher's aid that was working with the cheerleadersshe was a cheerleader. Now that person has since moved off and they're not here, and under rules of evidence it's not admissible; she couldn't tell her what Kim told her anyway. In his closing argument, the prosecutor remarked, Kim told a young friend who was a teacher's aid at school, and that blew the whole thing open. Bonds' counsel did not object to the closing statements and only objected to the opening remarks on the basis that the prosecutor was repeating himself. Since Bonds did not make a specific objection to the allegedly inflammatory or prejudicial nature of prosecutor's opening or closing statements, we will not consider his argument. See Cobbs v. State, 292 Ark. 188, 728 S.W.2d 957 (1987). Pursuant to Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 11(f), we have made our own examination of all other objections made at trial and find no reversible error. Affirmed. HAYS and GLAZE, JJ., concur.