State v. James

KAROHL, Presiding Judge.

Defendant-appellant appeals from a jury conviction of forcible rape. Defendant asserts that the prosecutor’s comments in voir dire and in rebuttal closing argument concerning the complaining witness were improper because they were inflammatory, prejudicial and appealed to the passions of the jury.

This appeal does not question the sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence supports a finding by the jury of the following facts. The complaining witness had lived for several months with a friend and her family. On the night in question the girls arranged a double date with…