Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Personal Opinions of the Prosecutor:

Text: ¶ 128. Next, Burns contends that the prosecutor improperly injected his own personal opinion during the argument. [MR. GEDDIE:] ... Now the legislature and the courts have set out yet another procedure for you to go systematically about determining whether or not Joseph Burns should suffer the penalty of death. I'll submit to you my position, the position of the State, that he should suffer death. That procedure is specifically set out in instruction that you will have with you. [MR. YOUNG:] ... I'm asking you to return the death penalty because the facts in this case warrant it. [MR. YOUNG:] ... Let's give JoJo what he deserves. I'll have no trouble living with it, because he asked for it and his acts warrant it. ¶ 129. First, the State correctly points out that counsel for defense failed to contemporaneously object to these comments. This Court has said many times over that failure to object at trial and `failure to include the reference in a motion for a new trial obviates his ability to assign the comments as error.' Davis, 660 So.2d at 1255 ( quoting Ahmad v. State, 603 So.2d 843, 846 (Miss.1992)). Therefore, Burns is barred from raising this issue. ¶ 130. The procedural bar notwithstanding, attorneys are given broad latitude in criminal cases during closing arguments. Davis, 660 So.2d at 1245; Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1269-70 (Miss.1995); Ivy v. State, 589 So.2d 1263, 1266 (Miss.1991); Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497, 506 (Miss.1997). Also, when a jury is properly instructed that statements made by counsel are not evidence, reversal is not required. Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951, 961 (Miss.1992). The trial judge, in the case sub judice did instruct the jury that arguments, statements and remarks of counsel are not evidence. Following the reasoning in Ormond, this issue is not only procedurally barred but is otherwise without merit. ¶ 131. This Court finds that Burns suffered no unjust prejudice due to any improper comments by the prosecutor as is required to be shown. Wells, 698 So.2d at 507. Further, the defense counsel failed to preserve many of these issues for appeal such that they are not properly before this Court. For the foregoing reasons, this issue has no merit.