State v. Parris (Concurrence & Dissent)

Summary

The concurring and dissenting opinion would affirm the defendant's murder conviction, concluding that the prosecutors' assumed misstatements concerning the extreme emotional disturbance defense did not deprive him of a fair trial. It reasons that correct statements of law, repeated directions to follow the court's instructions, and targeted curative instructions mitigated any prejudice. The opinion agrees with the majority that the challenged video-recorded interview was properly admitted and that other challenged comments did not constitute prosecutorial impropriety.