State v. Albino

Summary

The concurrence agreed that the murder conviction should be affirmed but disagreed with the majority's conclusion that several portions of the prosecutor's examination and closing argument were improper. It reasoned that the challenged statements, viewed in context and in light of the prosecutor's latitude to argue the evidence, were either fair commentary, technically objectionable but harmless, or insufficient to implicate due process. The concurrence also emphasized that defense counsel did not object to any of the challenged statements.