Opinion ID: 1660527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether rogers failed to receive a fair trial due to the state's improper remarks during its closing arguments.

Text: ¶ 12. Rogers claims that during the closing arguments, the State made improper statements regarding the weapon that were unsupported by the record during trial. Rogers asserts that following statements to the jury were error. [3] By Mr. Geddie: [L]et me show you something. This is the weapon. It's State's Exhibit No. 15. You can examine it yourself to see that it's not loaded. I want to show you something about this weapon. Mr. Weddle: Your Honor, I'm gonna object to this. May we approach? The Court: No, sir. Objection overruled. By Mr. Geddie: I want to show you something about this weapon. This weapon has the hammer back and I can't make it go off by accidentally waiving it about, but I can make it go off by pulling the trigger. Now, you're gonna have this weapon back in the jury room with you. And I want you to pull the triggerthe hammer back. And when you pull it back just a little bit, there's a space right here. You heard the click or maybe you didn't. You may have heard that click. That's when it goes on safe. You pull it back a little bit, it leave a little bit of space Mr. Weddle: Your Honor, I renew my objection. There's been no expert testimony with regard to this weapon. The Court: Objection overruled. By Mr. Geddie: It can't hit the firing pin, it won't go when you pull the trigger, it won't go when you shake it about. You pull it back a little farther and it hits the same safety. You pull it back farther, it locks open, it's on safe. You pull it back this way, it won't go off until you pull the trigger. This weapon, when you examine it yourself, will prove that the defendant was not telling you the truth when he said he pulled it back and it accidentally went off. It just won't work. Try it for yourself. You'll have it there. That's why you're able to take these exhibits back to the back. ¶ 13. Rogers asserts on appeal that no expert testimony was given about the weapon, and the statements during the State's closing arguments were inflammatory and constitute reversible error. ¶ 14. The trial court gave Instruction C-1 to the jurors, which stated in relevant part, [A]rguments, statements and remarks of counsel are intended to help you understand the evidence and apply the law, but are not evidence. Any argument, statement or remark having no basis in the evidence should be disregarded by you.... The evidence which you are to consider consists of the testimony and statements of the witnesses and the exhibits offered and received. You are also permitted to draw such reasonable inference from the evidence as seems justified in light of your own experience. ¶ 15. While attorneys are afforded wide latitude in arguing their cases to the jury, they are not allowed to employ tactics which are inflammatory, highly prejudicial, or reasonably calculated to unduly influence the jury. Sheppard v. State, 777 So.2d 659, 661 (Miss.2000) (citing Hiter v. State, 660 So.2d 961, 966 (Miss.1995)). The purpose of a closing argument is to fairly sum up the evidence. The State should point out those facts upon which the prosecution contends a verdict of guilty would be proper. Clemons v. State, 320 So.2d 368, 370 (Miss. 1975). The prosecutor may comment upon any facts introduced into evidence, and he may draw whatever deductions and inferences that seem proper to him from the facts. Bell v. State, 725 So.2d 836, 851 (Miss.1998) (collecting authorities). Counsel cannot, however, state facts which are not in evidence, and which the court does not judicially know, in aid of his evidence. Neither can he appeal to the prejudices of men by injecting prejudices not contained in some source of the evidence. Nelms & Blum Co. v. Fink, 159 Miss. 372, 131 So. 817, 821 (1930); see also Sheppard, 777 So.2d at 661. ¶ 16. The prosecutor in this matter made comments to the jury about an item that had been introduced into evidence. Rogers testified that after the disturbance between Johnson and Stolz that [I] reached around and got my gun....And when I was coming around, trying to back the hammer on it, my thumb slipped or the gun slipped or something slipped in my hand and `bam.' Rogers testified that the gun had a trigger and a hammer and that he pulled the hammer back on the gun so that no one could take the gun from him. Rogers asserts that he did not intend to fire the gun, but that he wanted to protect himself and his mother and to get everyone else out of the house. The prosecutor simply described certain mechanics of the gun to the jury and made inferences from the testimony of Rogers. The State's comments about the gun that was in evidence were not improper and did not prejudice the defendant. In addition, Instruction C-1 given to the jury should safeguard against any prejudicial effect the prosecutor's statements might have had upon the jury. See Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951, 961 (Miss.1992).