Opinion ID: 1722313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: prosecutor's argument to the jury

Text: Defendant contends that he was prejudiced by certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument. Arguments were not recorded in this case, but the court allowed defense counsel to state his objections on the record after the prosecutor's initial argument, and again after his rebuttal. After the state's closing, defendant objected to (1) the reference that Detective Mehl thought it was a big act because that was a conclusion being improperly placed in evidence; (2) the comments regarding Dr. Larson's testimony as to Williams' ability to remember because I was foreclosed from asking certain questions of Dr. Larson; (3) his arguing to Assistant District Attorney Garrity's credibility because that has never been put into issue; (4) the reference to the medical examiner knowing about the position of the murderer because, I believe, the court excluded that yesterday. After the state's rebuttal, defendant objected to: (1) his comment that they did not test for seminal stains. They did, but it was never put into evidence; (2) the statement that the defendant said he got to bed at six. I don't believe that was his testimony. (3) to the comment, `In my mind, he is guilty.' (4) he was arguing the type of neighborhood around there. That was never put in evidence. (5) he's been talking about what happens in confessions. Again, that, that is not a proper argument. In both instances, after counsel finished stating his objections, the court simply said that they were noted, and ordered that the jury be brought back out. No comment was made by the prosecutor. The circumstances in which unreported closing arguments may be reviewed were discussed in Smith v. State, 65 Wis.2d 51, 221 N.W.2d 687 (1974). In Smith the court emphasized the need, if review is to be had, for establishing with accuracy exactly what was said: The reasons for not undertaking review where the exact remarks are not in the record are obvious. Slight changes in wording, emphasis and context may materially alter the perceived substance of the remarks. 65 Wis.2d at 54. For this reason, the court has reviewed unreported remarks only when they were admitted on the record by the attorney who made them, or were reconstructed by the trial court. [10] It is obvious that no review can be had based upon the descriptions of the prosecutor's remarks outlined above. Several of them are incomprehensible, and in none may the context of the remark be discerned. In only one (In my mind, he is guilty.) did counsel set out the exact nature of what he claims the prosecutor said, and the propriety of this remark could not be determined without knowing whether, in context, the opinion was stated to be based upon the evidence, which is allowed, or whether it was offered merely as the personal feeling of the prosecutor, which would be improper. See State v. Cydzik, 60 Wis.2d 683, 695, 211 N.W.2d 421 (1973). In any case, the prosecutor did not, either expressly or by silence when a response was appropriate, admit that any of the alleged remarks were actually made, Smith, supra, nor were the remarks reconstructed by the trial court. Unverified, unsupported, and imprecise recollections of one trial counsel as to what was said by his opponent cannot form a basis upon which this court can act on appeal. [15] Moreover, as the state points out in its brief, no motion for a mistrial based upon improper argument was ever made. This court has held many times that objections to improper argument are waived if a motion for a mistrial on this ground is not timely made. Sanders v. State, 69 Wis.2d 242, 263, 230 N.W.2d 845 (1975); Davis v. State, 61 Wis.2d 284, 287, 212 N.W.2d 139 (1973), and cases there cited. For these two reasons, then, this contention of defendant cannot be sustained.