Opinion ID: 1058311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 50

Heading: Writing of the word match on visual aid

Text: During closing argument, the prosecutor used a visual aid in connection with his argument as to the fiber evidence in the case upon which the word match was written. The defense objected, arguing that the word match implied identity, whereas the testimony of the expert witness had been that the fibers found on the victims' clothing were consistent with fibers found in appellant's car. The trial court overruled the objection, stating, The rules provide that the closing argument by the State is limited to the subject matter covered in the State's argument and the argument by the defendant. Also the law provides that counsel may comment on the evidence and reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Discussion about fibers was included in the State's opening argument. It was also covered by the defendant in his argument. So, the rules provide that subject matter is fair game. The trial court further explained, The specific use of the word match ... if he uses it, that's his take on the evidence. He can comment on what he thinks the evidence is ... The jury heard the evidence, and its [sic] up to them to sort out whether his use of the word match is appropriate or not. The closing argument is a valuable privilege for both the State and the defense and counsel is afforded wide latitude in presenting final argument to the jury. See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn.1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn.1984). However, when a prosecutor's argument veers beyond the wide latitude afforded, the test for determining if reversal is required is whether the impropriety `affected the verdict to the prejudice of the defendant.' Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d at 783. Appellant argues that the use of the word match characterized the proof as much stronger than it actually was, which thereby misled the jury. The prosecutor did not exceed the latitude given him in writing the word match on the visual aid. Moreover, the word match on the visual aid did not affect the verdict to the prejudice of appellant. The jury heard the experts' testimony that the fibers on the victims' clothes were consistent. The experts were thoroughly cross-examined on this point. Additionally, the jury was instructed that arguments of counsel are not to be considered evidence. The jury is presumed to follow instructions. State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 914 (Tenn.1994). This issue is without merit.