State v. Martinez

Summary

The court held that the prosecutor improperly argued that no money was found on the defendant, contrary to the trial court's limitation permitting argument only that no evidence of money had been introduced. It nevertheless held that the prosecutor's separate argument about placing drugs and money with a coconspirator was a permissible appeal to common sense, and that the improper comment, viewed in the context of the entire trial, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Court and directed it to affirm the trial court's judgment.