Arising out of a confrontation at the home of his ex-girlfriend’s father, Austin Blaize was convicted of murder, attempted murder, felony murder, burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, intimidation with a deadly weapon, pointing a firearm, and carrying a handgun without a license. … In this direct appeal Blaize complains his convictions should be reversed and a new trial granted because of comments the trial judge made to the jury. We disagree and affirm the convictions and sentences.
….
… At the ten-day-long trial, … the State introduced the call records for Blaize’s Verizon cell phone. * * * According to [a Verizon engineer,] cell tower site 204-2 covered the [victims’] house, and on the night of the killing Blaize’s cell phone registered on that site at 6:52 p.m. According to Lee, by 7:13 p.m. Blaize’s cell phone was again registering on site 217-2, in Francisco. This evidence was consistent with the State’s theory of events placing Baize at or near the [victims’] residence when [the victim] was killed.
Blaize’s counsel cross-examined Lee at length and elicited … testimony contain[ing] numerous references to towers, sites, and sectors.
After the close of cross-examination the trial court announced a lunch recess and admonished the jurors which included the following exchange:
THE COURT: … And one final note. Please attempt to stay within sector 3 of cell phone tower site 217. If I find out anybody has been in sector 2 of cell phone tower 204 there’s going to be trouble, if you can even understand that. All right.
JUROR: Actually we do.
THE COURT: You do? That’s all right. You got it. All right. Be back about maybe 1:10 or something like that.
[Record citations omitted throughout.]3 No objection was raised concerning the trial court’s comment.
[Footnote 3:] It appears from the record that sector 3 of cell phone tower site 217 was the closest tower to the courthouse. Index of Exhibits at 83, State’s Ex. 77. The crime scene was located in sector 2 of cell phone tower 204.
….
Blaize insists that by referring to the cell phone tower evidence as the jury was dismissed for a recess, the trial judge “vouched for the accuracy of the cell phone tower technology and effectively harpooned [Blaize’s] chances to have the jury take his alibi defense seriously.” Blaize overstates his case. Although the judge’s comment was perhaps ill-advised, not all inopportune remarks constitute reversible error. [Citation omitted.] Rather, the comment must interfere with the party’s right to a fair trial or cause harm in some way. [Citation omitted.]
… We do not view the trial court’s comment so much as vouching for the accuracy of the tracking data, but rather an acknowledgement of the complexity of the cell phone tower evidence. … Considering the evidence as a whole, we are not persuaded a two-sentence remark about cell phone towers and sites during the course of a ten-day trial made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process. [Citation omitted.] In sum, Blaize has failed to demonstrate the judge’s comment amounted to fundamental error requiring reversal of his convictions and a new trial.
….
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rush, C.J., and Dickson, David and Massa, JJ., concur.