"Procedurally, contemporaneous objections `must be made to allegedly prejudicial comments during closing argument or the point is waived.'" Millender v. State, 734 So.2d 225 (¶ 29) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999); Dunaway v. State, 551 So.2d 162, 164 (Miss. 1989) (quoting Monk v. State, 532 So.2d 592, 600 (Miss. 1988) (citing Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976, 984 (Miss.
"Therefore, we conclude our review of this issue by simply resolving it adversely to him." Millender v. State, 734 So.2d 225, 233 (¶ 33) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 9.
To accomplish this arduous task, a jury must be allowed some latitude in deriving the facts from each witness's assertions. . . . Ultimately, the jury undertakes the duty of considering "testimonial defects of perception, memory and sincerity."Millender v. State, 734 So.2d 225 (¶ 25) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (citations omitted). Along with reviewing the evidence, the jury had the opportunity to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.
"Therefore, we conclude our review of this issue by simply resolving it adversely to him." Millender v. State, 734 So.2d 225, 233 (¶ 33) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). 2.
¶ 26. Rambus failed to preserve this issue for trial by not objecting to the prosecution's statement at the time it was made. "Procedurally, contemporaneous objections `must be made to allegedly prejudicial comments during closing argument or the point is waived.'" Longmire v. State, 749 So.2d 366 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (quoting Millender v. State, 734 So.2d 225 (¶ 29) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). Since Rambus failed to make a contemporaneous objection, this issue is hereby treated as waived.