Opinion ID: 1827061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the prosecutor make an improper comment during closing argument?

Text: During closing arguments, the prosecutor commented that the jury did not know whether Wiley's violent actions in this case were a one-time thing. Wiley argues that, by making these statements, the prosecutor implied that Wiley had a prior criminal record, and that such an implication was not supported by the record. The State argues that the comment was supported by the evidence, and that, furthermore, it was made in response to the following remark made during defense counsel's closing argument: [BY MR. JONES]: All the things we have established corroborate what I'm saying about this man not being a killer by instinct. But, again, he did kill. Add that up to him using bird shot. This was a one-time thing, as bad as it is, and I know it's bad, but it's not characteristic of this person. As a general rule, attorneys are to be given wide latitude in making their closing arguments. Jimpson v. State, 532 So.2d 985, 991 (Miss. 1988) (citing Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 209 (Miss. 1985)); Shook v. State, 552 So.2d 841, 851 (Miss. 1989). Given the latitude afforded an attorney during closing argument, any allegedly improper prosecutorial comment must be considered in context, considering the circumstances of the case, when deciding on their propriety. Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1270 (Miss. 1995); Davis v. State 660 So.2d 1228, 1248 (Miss. 1995). The comment of the prosecutor that the jury could not know whether Wiley's violent criminal activity was a one-time thing was supported by the evidence. The medical experts testified that, if he were under the influence of alcohol, Wiley could perpetrate another violent crime. They further testified that Wiley had alcoholic tendencies, and that the success rate for recovering substance abusers was very low. Moreover, the prosecutor's comment rebutted the statement made by defense counsel that this violent crime was a one-time thing. It appears that given the context in which the [prosecutor's] statement was made, taken with the supporting evidence in the record, the statement did not amount to reversible error. See Ballenger, 667 So.2d at 1271. Wiley's argument to the contrary is without merit.