Opinion ID: 1841427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Improper statement made by the prosecutor during closing argument

Text: ¶ 30. During closing rebuttal, the prosecutor made the following comment: So how do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt turning to the gun, this Smith & Wesson, how do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that this pistol was his? Well, one reason is it was found in or at the nightstand on what appears to have been his side of the bed, but also because that's exactly what kind of pistol he shot Mark Lentz with. Defense counsel immediately objected to the comment, arguing that no evidence of a shooting had come in, only that Williams was previously convicted of aggravated assault. Id. The trial court gave the following curative instruction to the jury: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm going to instruct you to disregard the statement that's been made by [the prosecutor]. You will see when you return to the jury room that State's Exhibit No. 5 in the indictment involving the case in 1992, the aggravated assault, that the weapon that is used is a 9-millimeter pistol. It's referred to in this indictment by a particular serial number. There's been no proof in this case that it's one and the same gun. ¶ 31. Williams argues that the trial court should have granted a mistrial sua sponte, in the absence of a no motion for a mistrial, because the jury was tainted by the prosecutor's comment. The granting of a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 528 (Miss.1996). It is presumed that a jury follows the direction of a trial judge to disregard an improper comment or testimony. Flora v. State, 925 So.2d at 805. Our law presumes the jury does as it is told. To presume otherwise would render the jury system inoperable. Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1209 (Miss.1996) (citations omitted). ¶ 32. There is no reason to believe that Williams was prejudiced or that the jury was tainted by the prosecutor's remark. Details of the shooting mentioned in the allegedly improper remark were already before the jury in the aggravated assault indictment, which had been admitted into evidence without objection. We must assume that the jury followed the instructions of the trial judge and disregarded the comment. After the court's admonishment, the prosecutor himself said that he did not mean to represent that that is the same gun. Further, the gun which was in evidence was not even a 9-millimeter, but a .22 caliber, showing the jury that it could not have been the same gun used in the aggravated assault. Given this set of circumstances, this Court cannot say that Williams was prejudiced by the prosecutor's comment, and there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial sua sponte.