(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. First, the majority concludes that the prosecutor "improperly and repeatedly” appealed to the jurors’ sympathy. I disagree. Identifying the homicide victim is not "appealing to sympathy”. Murder is a dirty, distasteful business, and that fact need not be hidden from the jury. But, in any event, in this case, no objection was made at trial. Where objection to a prosecutor’s argument is not made and, thus, a trial judge is not given an opportunity to rectify such possible error, we normally consider such a claim of error not to have been preserved for appellate review except where we conclude that the trial, in its entirety, constituted a manifest injustice. Review of this record reveals another sad drug killing. I do not, however, find any manifest injustice or denial of a fair trial. I would decline to find that the unobjected-to overzealousness of the prosecutor was a sufficient reason to upset the jury’s verdict.
Second, the majority say that the courtroom was acoustically unacceptable and that defendant was denied a fair trial. This case was presided over by a visiting judge who, before his retirement, served for many years in the Detroit Common Pleas Court. While courtroom conditions were far from *278ideal, he was there and, in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial during trial and in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial after the guilty verdict, declined to find defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Greater comfort and less interruption is a desired goal, but lack of it does not mean defendant was prejudiced. No specific claim is made regarding evidence that was not heard and that would have made the jury reach a different result.
Assigning the acoustics as a basis for reversal is not a sufficient reason to reverse and send back for new trial. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. He was in a position far superior to that of the members of this appellate panel to determine whether any noise or interruptions interfered with defendant’s ability to present his defense and to obtain a fair trial.
I would affirm.