Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct warranted reversal.

Text: ś 66. The brothers allege various instances of prosecutorial misconduct. In addition, defense counsel failed to object to many of the statements, which the brothers claim amounts to another example of ineffective assistance of counsel. In their motion for new trial and j.n.o.v. the brothers did not raise any of these claims.
ś 67. This assertion was addressed in Issue 4 and found without merit. Therefore, no further discussion is required on this point.
ś 68. The brothers argue that without introducing the actual statements, the prosecutor erred by claiming that the statements of Watson and Newton were consistent with their statements made in 1970 and that Doc's statements were not consistent. The record reveals that the defense objected to the introduction of Newton's statement. The defense's objection as to Watson's testimony was overruled. As for Bradshaw, there was an interview statement to which the defense objected. To find that it is prejudicial for counsel to say that a statement is consistent with a witness statement without introducing the statements, when the defense objected to the introduction to the statements in the first place would be to find an error that the defense created. Appellant has no standing to seek redress from alleged error of his own creation. Evans v. State, 547 So.2d 38, 40 (Miss. 1989). This issue is without merit.
ś 69. The brothers complain about the following questions posed to Watson during his redirect examination by the State: Q. [Defense counsel] asked you about some remarks that he says that Doc Caston made that night about telling you to quit. Did you ever hear Doc Caston ever say stop doing anything to Rainey Pool? A. No, I didn't never hear him. Q. Okay. Do you know of anybody else that's ever made a statement in connection with this case who's ever said anything like that about Doc Caston? A. No. (emphasis added). Clearly, this is an instance in which the prosecution was within the parameters of reasonable questioning on redirect examination. Furthermore, there is no hearsay in this case. Watson simply stated that he had no knowledge of any statements that are consistent with Doc's assertion.