Opinion ID: 1735417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Prosecutor's Comments at the Sentencing Phase.

Text: ś 146. The State argues that Walker is procedurally barred from raising some subsections (all except the subsection regarding the safety of the prison guards) of this issue for the first time on appeal for failure to contemporaneously object and raise the issue at trial. ś 147. Although Walker concedes that no contemporaneous objection was made during the sentencing phase, he relies on Faraga v. State, 514 So.2d 295, 303 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition that, Although no objection was raised during the argument, under this Court's heightened level of scrutiny for death penalty cases, they will be reviewed. See also Hansen, 592 So.2d at 142 (relaxing the contemporaneous objection rule and applying the plain error rule); Grubb, 584 So.2d at 789 (plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated). ś 148. In Williams v. State, 512 So.2d 666 (Miss.1987), defense counsel did not object to prosecutor's closing argument, and this Court held that [t]he failure of an objection is fatal. Id. at 672 (citing Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss.1985)). This Court has held that [i]f no contemporaneous objection is made, the error, if any, is waived. Walker, 671 So.2d at 597 (citing Foster, 639 So.2d at 1270). The contemporaneous objection rule is in place to enable the trial court to correct an error with proper instructions to the jury whenever possible. Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1312 (Miss. 1986) (citing Baker v. State, 327 So.2d 288, 292-93 (Miss.1976)). To preserve an issue for appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made. Ratliff v. State, 313 So.2d 386 (Miss.1975). See also Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148 (Miss.1992) (defendant failed to contemporaneously object to the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument, and a motion for mistrial, made after jury verdict of guilty, was deemed too late); Monk v. State, 532 So.2d 592, 600 (Miss. 1988) (contemporaneous objection during closing argument must be made, otherwise it is waived); Gray, 487 So.2d at 1312 (contemporaneous objection during prosecution's closing argument must be made or it is deemed waived); Coleman v. State, 378 So.2d 640, 649 (Miss.1979) (defendant failed to object to a statement by the district attorney in closing argument and a motion for mistrial after the jury had retired was deemed too late). ś 149. `[I]t is the duty of a trial counsel, if he deems opposing counsel overstepping the wide range of authorized argument, to promptly make objections and insist upon a ruling by the trial court.' Evans, 725 So.2d at 670 (quoting Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 209-10 (Miss.1985)). This Court on numerous occasions has refused to consider the issue of prosecutorial misconduct where the defendant did not raise it at trial, and we so refuse to do so today. See, e.g., Dufour v. State, 483 So.2d 307, 311 (Miss.1985); Billiot v. State, 478 So.2d 1043, 1045 (Miss. 1985); In re Hill, 460 So.2d 792, 799 (Miss. 1984); Smith v. State, 434 So.2d 212, 216 (Miss.1983); Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 836 (Miss.1983). We find that all subsections of this issue except for the subsection regarding the safety of the prison guards is procedurally barred because Walker failed to contemporaneously object at trial. ś 150. Alternatively considering the claimed errors on their merit, Walker's claim as a whole likewise fails. Walker claims that the State committed reversible error in arguing during closing arguments at the sentencing phase matters that were not in evidence, including that Walker was a member of a gang and smoked a ton of marijuana. Walker also claims that the State committed reversible error when it improperly compared Richardson's lack of rights to Walker's abundance of rights. Additionally, Walker argues that the State committed reversible error when the it made improper references to the description of Richardson's murder as being torturous (suggesting heinous, atrocious or cruel, when no such instruction was given), and finally that the safety of the prison guards was at issue if Walker was to receive a life sentence.