Linic v. State

I concur in the majority opinion. I write to address the closing argument. I would find that the prosecutor’s closing *394argument was egregious and would require a new trial even in the absence of the evidentiary errors. In particular, on several occasions the prosecutor made prejudicial statements without any evidentiary support or even a plausible inference from the evidence presented. For instance, the prosecutor suggested that the appellant was stressed by her life and by her domineering father and that she had no future. As noted in the majority, the prosecutor also argued without any…