The Defendant's failure to make an offer of proof following the trial court's exclusion of her statement results in her waiving of the issue on appeal. See Sims, 45 S.W.3d at 15; see also State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136, at *22 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 12, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 20, 2007) (holding that a defendant to preserve the record for appellate review of whether the trial court properly excluded his statement to a detective when he failed to include his statement to the detective in the record). The Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
"[I]t has long been recognized that '[t]he question of whether to object to improper argument is a tactical decision for counsel.'" State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2007) (quoting State v. Compton, 642 S.W.2d 745, 747 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)). Indeed, it is often a good tactic to allow the State to make inflammatory arguments without any objection because, on occasion, such argument "creates sympathy on the part of the jury for the defendant and animosity toward the State."
"[I]t has long been recognized that '[t]he question of whether to object to improper argument is a tactical decision for counsel.'" State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2007) (quoting State v. Compton, 642 S.W.2d 745, 747 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)).
Following a jury trial, the Petitioner was convicted of six counts of aggravated sexual battery involving a minor. State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 20, 2007). After a sentencing hearing, the trial court took the case under advisement and subsequently issued its ruling by written order.
Therefore, the defendant had the opportunity to challenge the testimony of the witnesses. See State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136, at *17 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2007) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)). Based on the foregoing, the defendant has failed to meet his required burden and is not entitled to relief. 4. Closing Arguments
This court concluded otherwise and affirmed the judgments. State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 20, 2007).
Petitioner, Charles Owens, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of six counts of aggravated sexual battery. He received a sentence of twenty-four years. State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 12, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Aug. 20, 2007).
Id. This Court revisited this issue in State v. Charles Owens, No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1094136 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Nashville, Apr. 12, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug 20, 2007). In Charles Owens, the prosecutor asked the defendant whether the child rape victim had lied and her mother had lied.
Prosecutorial impropriety may occur in the course of direct examination of a witness. See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d (1982); United States v. Malik, Docket No. 06-1591 (3rd Cir. July 27, 2007), p. 4; Phelps v. Duckworth, 582 F.Sup. 401, 408 (S.D.Ind. 1983), reversed on other grounds, 772 F.2d 1410 (7th Cir. 1985); State v. Giovannoni, 138 Wn.App. 1048 (2007); State v. Owens, Docket No. M2005-02571-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. April 12, 2007); United States v. Evans, Docket No, 1:06-CR-161 (N.D.Ohio December 11, 2006); Commonwealth v. Delvalle, 443 Mass. 782, 794, 824 N.E.2d 830 (2005); State v. Tran, 124 Wn.App. 1012 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1023, 116 P.3d 999 (2005); People v. Leonard, 638 N.W.2d 415, 416 (Mich. 2002) (Kelly, J., dissenting); Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 322-25 (Minn. 1996); State v. Philbrook, 525 A.2d 1047, 1048 (Me. 1987).