Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Emphasizing a lack of victim's rights:

Text: ¶ 117. As the State asserts, Burns does not make it clear where the prosecution compared the defendant's rights to the victim's rights. However, the State cites two places to which Burns may have been referring. [MR. YOUNG:] ... He also said that now we're asking you to do to Joe Burns JoJo Burns the same thing that he did to Mike McBride. That is far, far from the truth. I'm not asking you to rob JoJo Burns. I'm not asking you to stab JoJo Burns to death. I'm not asking you to sentence him to death without a fair trial and a fair jury. I'm asking you to put the wheels in motion for him to get the death penalty. He's asked for it, he deserves it and he should have it.       [MR YOUNG:] ... Mike McBride had no trial. Joey BurnsJoJo Burns was his judge, his jury and his executioner. He's had a fair trial. He's asked for death penalty. We have presented the evidence to you that warrants it. ¶ 118. The State once again argues that the record contains no contemporaneous objection to these comments. See Wells, supra. Without waiving the procedural bar, the State contends that this issue is without merit. We agree. ¶ 119. The State analogizes the prior comments by the prosecution to an issue raised in Wells and Davis, supra. In Davis, during sentencing phase closing arguments, the prosecutor stated that Davis `was the judge and the defense lawyer.... He was the jury. And he decided in his own mind to kill and murder.... Mr. Davis had due process.' Wells, 698 So.2d at 511 ( quoting Davis, 684 So.2d at 654). Davis presented an issue very similar to the one in the case sub judice. This Court, in Davis, held that since there was no other portion of the closing argument to this effect, we find that the comments by the State were isolated and do not warrant a reversal. Id. at 655. ¶ 120. Following our reasoning in Davis, this issue is without merit.