Opinion ID: 1093210
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing to sustain appellant's objection to certain statements made by district attorney turner during closing argument and in refusing to grant appellant's motion for a mistrial and subsequent motion for a new trial?

Text: In his brief Monk argued that his objection to the following colloquy should have been sustained: BY MR. TURNER: Now, I say shame on Roger Dale Monk for taking the life of that child. For whatever frustrations life has dealt him, shame on him for taking the life of a child six months old. But, even more, shame on us if we let him get away with it. Consider this. If you find the Defendant not guilty, then by your verdict, you will have turned the key and opened the door and said, Go on out in the world, Roger Dale Monk. Go on out there, and there are more babies out there. Reap whatever havoc your rage causes you to reap, and we will let you go. Now, child abuse has become a national epidemic, but you, the jury, hold the prescription for that epidemic by finding a guilty verdict of capital murder. You can make a difference today by sending out a message that we are not going to sweep this kind of thing under the rug anymore. That's over. Those of you who have children can sympathize with Judy Stephens Monk. BY MR. PHILLIPS: Objection, Your Honor. He is getting outside the evidence and the law in this case, and it is impermissible argument. BY THE COURT: I am going to overrule the objection. However, I am going to caution you to stay within the record and the inferences flowing from the record. BY MR. TURNER: Yes, sir. BY MR. TURNER: It is too late to help Judy Monk, and it's too late to help Rosa Stephens, but it is not too late to help others. You can make a difference by a verdict of guilty of capital murder. BY MR. PHILLIPS: Objection, Your Honor. He is outside the evidence and the law on this case. BY THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. PHILLIPS: Move for a new trial. BY THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. TURNER: Now, let's ask this question. What difference will your guilty verdict make? First of all, it will keep Roger Dale Monk out of society where he cannot do this kind of damage to any other little children. Secondly, it will punish him for the atrocious crime that he has committed. Thirdly, it will protect others from him, from him doing that to anyone else, and lastly, and perhaps most important, it will deter other people who hear about this that might be inclined to commit this kind of crime, because you will send a message that in Harrison County, or in Scott County or in any county in the State of Mississippi, you will never ever condone this type of action in our Court system or in our society. If by your verdict, one small child is saved, you will have done your job. Now, we are fighting child abuse as hard as we know how. The law enforcement officers in this case have done an excellent job. BY MR. PHILLIPS: Objection, Your Honor. We are outside the law and the inferences in this case. He is making a speech. BY THE COURT: Overruled. (R-V, 833-836) A contemporaneous objection must be made to allegedly erroneous comments made during closing argument or the point is waived. See Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304 (Miss. 1986); Shavers v. State, 455 So.2d 1299 (Miss. 1984). See also Baker v. State, 327 So.2d 288 (Miss. 1976). However, if a comment is so inflammatory that the trial court should have objected on his own motion, the point may be considered. Gray, supra, at 1312. See also Clemons v. State, 320 So.2d 368 (Miss. 1975). The reasoning behind the requirement of contemporaneous objections is to allow the trial court to correct the error with proper jury instructions. Baker, supra . In discussing the purpose and limits of closing arguments, the following is stated in 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 1090 (1961): Generally, improper remarks or argument to jury should scrupulously be avoided by all attorneys. The rule that it is always the duty of the prosecuting attorney to treat accused in a fair and impartial manner applies to his conduct and arguments to the jury, and the rights of the accused cannot be prejudiced by improper remarks. It is sometimes difficult, however, to draw the line between allowable argument and improper statements in argument, because the prosecuting attorney and also the counsel for accused, has of necessity much latitude in the language or manner of presenting his side of the case consistent with the facts in evidence. The right of argument contemplates liberal freedom of speech and range of discussion confined only to bounds of logic and reason; and if counsel's argument is within the limits of proper debate it is immaterial whether it is sound or unsound, or whether he employs wit, invective, and illustration therein. Moreover, figurative speech is legitimate if there is evidence on which it may be founded. Exaggerated statements and hasty observations are often made in the heat of debate, which, although not legitimate, are generally disregarded by the court, because in its opinion they are harmless. There are, however, certain well-established limits beyond which counsel is forbidden to go; he must confine himself to the facts introduced in evidence and to the fair and reasonable deductions and conclusions to be drawn therefrom, and to the application of the law, as given by the court, to the facts. [Emphasis added] See also, Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss. 1981). Additionally, in the case of Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984), this Court stated that a prosecuting attorney is entitled to great latitude in framing the closing argument as long as no impermissible factor is argued, such as the defendant's failure to take the stand. Id. at 762. Likewise, this Court held in Carleton v. State, 425 So.2d 1036 (Miss. 1983), that remarks made by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument in a murder trial asking the jury to send a message to let people know what the people of Harrison County stand for was not improper. Id. at 1039. However, in the case of Bridgeforth v. State, 498 So.2d 796 (Miss. 1986), this Court held that the objection to the closing argument during which the prosecution referred to the defendant as scum should have been sustained because this amounted to personal abuse and vilification and was inflammatory. Id. at 801. Although it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between permissible comments and impermissible comments, we find the district attorney's comments were not such as to require reversal.