the trio pulled over and waited for the victim‟s group to walk by the car.
Such a
characterization of the evidence is proper during closing arguments. {¶66} As for the comments which garnered an objection, it cannot be concluded that appellant suffered any prejudice.
For example, the prosecutor stated that the
defense would muddy the waters by diminishing the police investigation and the eyewitness accounts. The prosecutor then stated, “it‟s the same defense every criminal defense attorney—” before an objection was lodged. The court immediately sustained the objection.
Appellant is correct that this comment is not wholly appropriate.
However, appellant is incorrect that this rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct constituting unfair prejudice. When it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found the defendant guilty even absent the alleged misconduct, the defendant has not been prejudiced; thus, the wrongful conduct must be viewed in the context of the entire trial. State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 78 (1994). This comment, while improper, did not prejudicially affect appellant‟s right to a fair trial, especially given the weight of the evidence in this case. See State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14 (1984). {¶67} Appellant‟s third assignment of error is without merit. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶68} Appellant‟s fourth assignment of error states: {¶69} “Appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to perform as a reasonably competent advocate before and during trial.”
21