Holland v. State

1. Keith Holland appeals his drug conviction in the Superior Court, claiming the prosecutors closing remarks prejudiced him before the jury, and thus denied him a fair trial. Holland argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the investigating officers credibility when he stated that the latters testimony "held up," was "consistent," and was "laden with certainty." We find that Holland was not prejudiced because the prosecutor ultimately linked his comments to the evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, we affirm.