Opinion ID: 1372775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Inappropriate Remarks

Text: Appellant argues that the Solicitor's comments during cross-examination of a witness and during closing arguments improperly injected racial issues into the trial. We disagree. As a general rule, inflammatory remarks which are calculated to appeal to the passions or prejudices of a jury should be affirmatively condemned. South Carolina State Highway Dep't. v. Nasim, 255 S.C. 406, 411, 179 S.E.2d 211, 213 (1971). [W]hether or not the particular arguments are so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error depends upon the nature of the utterances and the circumstances under which they were made. Id. Under certain circumstances, this Court will grant a new trial despite the aggrieved party's failure to contemporaneously object to the argument if the prejudice caused by the argument is clear. Dial v. Niggel Assoc., Inc., 333 S.C. 253, 256, 509 S.E.2d 269, 271 (1998); Toyota of Florence, Inc., v. Lynch, 314 S.C. 257, 263, 442 S.E.2d 611, 615 (1994). Additionally, a solicitor's closing arguments in a capital trial should focus on the defendant's character, his background, and the nature of the crime. State v. Reed, 293 S.C. 515, 519, 362 S.E.2d 13, 15 (1987) ( overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 69, 406 S.E.2d 315, 328 (1991)). The arguments must be viewed in the context of the entire record, and the relevant question is whether the comments infected the trial with unfairness so as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 17, 482 S.E.2d 760, 766 (1997). As a starting point, we recognize that the terms blond lady and King Kong could have racial connotations. However, this court's jurisprudence does not prohibit the use of terms with racial meanings, nor does our case law stand for the proposition that arguments or evidence in a case must be void of racial allusions. Instead, this court has recognized that it is impermissible to use race to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. Accordingly, our inquiry focuses on how these terms were used in Appellant's case. In our view, the blond lady remark was not made to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. If the State had sought to make the race of Appellant's former lover an issue in this case, we believe they would have elicited evidence to this effect while examining their witness who testified extensively about the affair. Instead, this comment came while cross-examining a defense witness. Furthermore, we find that even if this remark was inflammatory, it did not prejudice Appellant. This remark is a far cry from the outrageous and inflammatory evidence and arguments seen in Nasim, Toyota, Dial, and the cases cited by Appellant. The proper inquiry is not whether the Solicitor's remark was undesirable or condemnable, but whether the comment so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). In this case, the Solicitor made the blond lady comment only once and never referred to Appellant's lover's race again. Furthermore, this case involved a brutal murder, where guilt was clearly established. Accordingly, we find no evidence of prejudice from the blond lady remark. Similarly, the Solicitor's use of the term King Kong was not an appeal to the passions or prejudices of the jury. The comment referred to Appellant's immense size, strength, and the destructiveness of his previous crimes. In this case, the trial court properly determined that Appellant's size and strength were probative of the aggravating circumstance of physical torture, which the court charged to the jury. In this regard, the Solicitor's use of the term King Kong was not suggestive of a giant black gorilla who abducts a white woman, but rather, descriptive of Appellant's size and strength as they related to his past crimes. Also, Appellant's mitigation witnesses described him as a gentle giant, a big old teddy bear, the Secretary of Defense, and the Mediator. The defense used these terms to indicate Appellant was a changed man and not a threat to others. In this regard, the trial court correctly found that King Kong was an invited response to Appellant's mitigation evidence. Finally, the Solicitor's Caveman comment was merely descriptive of two of Appellant's past violent incidents. A witness to Appellant's ABHAN testified that she saw Appellant dragging the motionless body of one of the victims across a parking lot by the hair. Additionally, a prison guard testified about an incident where Appellant reached into another inmate's cell and dragged the inmate out by the hair. The Solicitor made this comment while describing how Appellant dragged his victims during these incidents, and, in our view, the comment was not inflammatory. Based on the above reasoning, we hold that the Solicitor's comments did not improperly inject racial issues into the trial. [3]