Opinion ID: 2313191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prosecutor's Alleged Improper Closing Statement.

Text: Finally, Dailey contends that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments improperly shifted the burden of proof to Dailey, thus, warranting a curative instruction from the trial judge. As we explained in Daniels v. State : Not every improper remark, however, requires reversal. Only comments that prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the accused compromise the integrity of the verdict and the fairness of the trial. We review a claim of prosecutorial misconduct de novo to determine whether the conduct was improper or prejudicial. [10] During summation, a prosecutor may argue an inference which could be drawn from the evidence. [11] Here, the prosecutor's statement exposed an inconsistency in Roane's testimony in an effort to rebut Dailey's defense. We conclude that the prosecutor's remark was acceptable comment on Dailey's evidence. Therefore, the trial judge did not err by failing to give a curative instruction.