Court Opinion

ID: 9692521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:56:28.908039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:35.093187
License: Public Domain

Doctoroff, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Considering the entire closing argument, I do not believe that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper. Twice in the disputed statement, the prosecutor stated that the evidence indicated a verdict of guilty. He also told the jurors to "stick with your oath as jurors.” I find that the quoted statement did not divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, nor was it particularly persuasive or inflammatory.
A prosecutor’s closing argument should be considered in its entirety. People v Hedelsky, 162 Mich App 382, 386; 412 NW2d 746 (1987). The test of prosecutorial misconduct is whether the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial. People v Burnett, 166 Mich App 741, 754; 421 NW2d 278 (1988).
Read in its entirety, I do not believe defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial by the prosecutor’s closing argument. The art of advocacy is the art of persuasion. In closing argument, emotional language is "an important weapon in counsel’s forensic arsenal limited by the principle that a lawyer cannot comment upon evidence which has not been introduced.” People v Mischley, 164 Mich App 478, 482-483; 417 NW2d 537 (1987), lv den 430 Mich 868 (1988). I would affirm.