Opinion ID: 1343569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Solicitor's Comments During Closing Argument

Text: Appellant contends the trial judge erred in overruling appellant's objections to the solicitor's comments during closing argument. Appellant first objected to the solicitor's comment: They tried to say that Mr. Brooks killed himself. No grounds were stated for the objection and the trial judge overruled it. [A] general objection which does not specify the particular ground on which the objection is based is insufficient to preserve a question for review. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 215 (1993); State v. Bailey, 253 S.C. 304, 170 S.E.2d 376 (1969) (trial judge commits no error in overruling general objection). In any event, a trial judge is vested with broad discretion in dealing with the range of propriety of closing argument, and ordinarily his rulings on such matters will not be disturbed. We must review the argument in the context of the entire record. The appellant has the burden of showing that any alleged error in argument deprived him of a fair trial. State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18, 393 S.E.2d 364 (1990). The relevant question is whether the solicitor's comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). We find no denial of due process. The solicitor's comment was in response to the argument appellant made in his closing argument during the guilt phase. Throughout the trial, appellant contended the murder was the result of an armed robbery gone awry when Mr. Brooks attempted to fight and was shot. The solicitor's comments were invited responses to appellant's argument. Further, reviewing the argument and the entire record, we hold the comments did not deny appellant a fair trial. The solicitor then equated life in prison with that of a motel with appellant as the innkeeper. Appellant did not object to these comments. Therefore, this issue is not preserved. Southerland, supra . Appellant also contends the following was improper: Mr. Myers: ... But what he has done is he has cast aspersions on everybody with a learning disability. He will say, `He's got dyslexia or got a learning disability. All you folks are going to be murderers____ Mr. Voisin: Objection. Mr. Myers:____You are going to be killers____ Mr. Voisin: Objection. Mr. Myers: That's what they are saying. Mr. Voisin: No, it's not what we are saying. The Court: The jury is going to remember what he said. He didn't say exactly that. I agree with you. The trial judge ruled in appellant's favor and appellant failed to move to strike or request a curative instruction. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for review. Craig, supra; State v. McFadden, 318 S.C. 404, 458 S.E.2d 61 (Ct.App.1995). Appellant contends the following comments were improper: we are seeking the death penalty and we expect it... Anything less than that will be a blight on the life of what remains of Ruth Brooks ... and the memory of Matthew Brooks. Appellant objected without stating any grounds and the trial judge overruled the objection. Thus, this issue is not preserved. Bailey, supra . On appeal, appellant also contends the solicitor improperly commented on appellant's failure to testify. The solicitor stated that he had not heard anybody from the stand apologize to Mrs. Brooks. Appellant did not object to this below. Therefore, this issue is not preserved. Southerland, supra .