Court Opinion

ID: 9659005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:26:12.380404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:02.896849
License: Public Domain

JONES, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur with the holding that the record of the prosecuting attorney’s remarks during summation is inadequate to disclose an improper argument and that the trial court should not be reversed for overruling an objection thereto. I confess that the issue is a close one, and that a heavy burden is imposed on defense counsel to adequately preserve the record for review in such cases where oral argument of counsel is not taken down, transcribed, and made a part of the transcript on appeal. But the rule of our cases seems clear that the onus is on the objecting attorney to include in his objection the substance of the argument to which his objection is directed, and this for the reason that the legal bounds of the propriety of such statement cannot be tested in a vacuum, or out of context.
I do not agree with that portion of the majority opinion which I interpret as saying that the confusion as to the substantial language deemed objectional can be contributed at least in part to the phrase “of anybody 12 years old . . . ”. I do not believe that the use of the word “to” instead of the word “of” would materially alter or improve the record in this regard. It is the failure to the defense counsel to inform the court of the specific argument which he deems objectionable that makes it defective, rather than his apparent slip of the tongue in saying “of” instead of “to”.
To properly preserve the record, defense counsel must state to the court in his objection the substance of the statement he is objecting to and then state the grounds for the objection. Here, defense counsel failed to meet this burden and the trial court properly overruled the objection. I would affirm on this basis.
HEFLIN, C. J., concurs.