Opinion ID: 1464772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Expression of Opinion

Text: Last, Appellant makes the claim that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the evidence and improperly expressed her opinion. In particular, at trial he objected to the prosecutor making comments prefaced with phrases such as I think and I find. The trial court then told the prosecutor to preface her comments with phases such as we think, which she then did. Appellant contended, however, that statements such as we think would also be impermissible, as they turn a statement into an opinion. It is improper for counsel to express personal opinions as to a person's guilt or innocence, or to make any inferences unwarranted by the evidence. See generally United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 9-11, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). However, counsel may make any arguments reasonably supported by the evidence. Id.; East, 60 S.W.2d at 139. Indeed, the key is whether the statement is reasonably supported by the evidence, as this is what distinguishes normal, proper argument from something improper, such as suggesting that evidence outside of the record supports a particular conclusion. In this case, the prosecutor did nothing improper. Her statements prefaced by phrases such as I think or we think were not misconduct. Prefatory phrases such as I think are often used unintentionally, as a matter of habit, to make the claims that follow seem less bold. Such phrases hedge one's argument, making it seem less authoritative, and their use is a habit that is often difficult to change. Importantly, nothing suggests these phrases were used to attempt to inflame the jury, bolster the credibility of witnesses by personally vouching for them, or to make the jury consider anything other than the evidence presented a trial. To the contrary, this is a natural way of speaking when presenting an argument. Accordingly, there was no error.