Opinion ID: 1704807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: flowers was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Text: ¶ 54. Flowers next argues that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during several phases of the trial and these actions plus the cumulative effect of these actions denied his right to a fair trial. A review of the record below reveals that defense counsel failed to object to many of these statements. It is the duty of trial counsel to promptly make objections if he deems that opposing counsel is overstepping the wide range of authorized argument, and then insist upon a ruling by the court. Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 670 (Miss.1997). The trial judge will first determine if the objection should be sustained or overruled. Id. The judge is in the best position to weigh the consequences of the objectionable argument. Id. If he decides that serious and irreparable damage has been done, he can grant a mistrial. Id. If the argument does not warrant a mistrial he can just admonish the jury to disregard the improper comment. Id. In death penalty cases the contemporaneous objection rule is applicable. Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1203 (Miss.1996)(citing Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss.1987) (holding that applicability of contemporaneous objection rule is not diminished in a capital case); Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1317, 1333 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 55. Many of Flowers's sub-claims are thus procedurally barred because they were not the targets of a contemporaneous, or any other objection during the trial. Only one objection was made by Flowers during the prosecutor's closing argument. Many of the sub-claims do not warrant discussion because of the procedural bar. However, heightened scrutiny applies in death penalty cases. Plain error applies to the issues we discuss hereafter. Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1289 (Miss.1994)(citing Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1312 (Miss.1986) (defendant who fails to make a contemporaneous objection must rely on plain error to raise the assignment on appeal)). However, two sub-claims warrant discussion: 1) the cross-examination of Flowers regarding the taped interview, and 2) the attempted impeachment of witnesses by the D.A. without a factual basis.