Opinion ID: 1787590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the court err in overruling appellant's motion for mistrial because of a prejudicial statement made by the district attorney in his argument?

Text: During his closing argument, the district attorney made the following statement: Culpable negligence is conduct which exhibits or manifests a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of human lives and the conduct of the defendant Ulysses S. Gandy did disregard human life because three people were killed. And we are here today only concerned with young Daniel Palmer. Three people were killed and certainly that is disregard for the safety  Appellant contends the statement by the district attorney that three people were killed in the collision constituted error, since appellant was being tried only for the death of Daniel Palmer. The testimony indicated that all three individuals in the Toyota were killed, and the same was properly admitted as a part of the res gestae. While the district attorney should not have alluded to the fact that all three persons were killed, the jury was certainly aware of their deaths and it is difficult to see how the jury could have been prejudiced by such statement. Ford v. State, 226 So. 378 (Miss. 1969). Consequently, there is no merit in this assignment.