Opinion ID: 1830839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: (B) The Prosecutor's Closing Argument

Text: ¶ 56. Hughes argues that the prosecutor improperly commented on the evidence when he stated during closing arguments that Hughes' DNA profile was rare. ¶ 57. The test for determining whether a prosecutor's comment is improper is found in Davis v. State: [T]he test to determine whether an improper argument by a prosecutor requires reversal is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument of the prosecuting attorney is to create an unjust prejudice against the accused as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694, 701 (Miss.1988)( citing Craft v. State, 226 Miss. 426, 84 So.2d 531 (1956)). ¶ 58. Furthermore, the allegedly improper statement must be evaluated in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as this Court made clear in Davis v. State: This Court has traditionally given attorneys wide latitude in closing arguments. Any allegedly improper prosecutorial comment must be evaluated in context, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case when deciding the comment's propriety. Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1248 (Miss. 1995); (citing Ahmad v. State, 603 So.2d 843, 846 (Miss.1992)). ¶ 59. Thus the question is whether the prosecutor's statement that Hughes possessed a rare DNA profile prejudiced Mr. Hughes to such an extent that the jury's decision was improperly influenced. Here, the following exchange took place: [STATE]: That is one of the important things that you heard about in this case. What Ann Montgomery told you basically is that William Ray Hughes has a genetic profile that is so rare that it appears in only about one out of 86,000 people, okay? [COUNSEL FOR HUGHES]: I object, Your Honor. Ann Montgomery never used the word rare. Mrs. Lamar is misstating her testimony, and therefore I move for a mistrial. THE COURT: It will be overruled. The jury will make the decision based on the evidence as presented, as they recall. [STATE] (continuing) What she told you was that the sperm found in Ashley Galloway was of a genetic profile so rare that it only appeared in 86,000 people, one in every 86,000 people, okay, and William Ray Hughes is one of those people that share that profile, okay? ¶ 60. As with most words in the English language, rare is susceptible to a variance of meaning, but it seems obvious that one common meaning of the word rare would be 1 in 86,000. A jury is easily capable of deciding for itself whether the prosecutor's characterization of Mrs. Montgomery's testimony fits their personal notion of rare and this is essentially what the trial judge ruled. ¶ 61. Furthermore, the comment in the current case was a comment on the evidence, and not a personal attack on or vilification of Hughes. Ahmad v. State, 603 So.2d at 846; Craft v. State, 226 Miss. at 434, 84 So.2d at 535. In conclusion, the trial judge was correct in determining that the State's argument was not improper. Issue III(B) is without merit.