Opinion ID: 1057999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Closing ArgumentAppeal to Vengeance

Text: In closing argument, the prosecutor stated: You've heard the pleading by the family to not give him the death sentence, which you would expect. It was a plea that the Saylors didn't get the opportunity to make for Lisa. In response to the Defendant's objection, the prosecutor noted that the point of his argument was that the jury was not to allow sympathy or prejudice to guide its decision. The court allowed the argument to proceed. The prosecutor continued, stating that His Honor will tell you at the end of his charge that you're not to let sympathy or prejudice guide your decision. That you use reason and common sense. Citing State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 812 (Tenn.1994), the Defendant argues that this type of argument has been characterized by our supreme court as a thinly veiled appeal to vengeance which is not permissible in a capital proceeding and which error in part led to a reversal in that case. In Bigbee , the Court held that among other errors, a portion of the prosecutor's argument was improper as follows: Finally, the prosecutor strayed beyond the bounds of acceptable argument by making a thinly veiled appeal to vengeance, reminding the jury that there had been no one there to ask for mercy for the victims of the killings in Sumner and Montgomery Counties, and encouraging the jury to give the Defendant the same consideration that he had given his victims. Although the prosecutor could have properly counseled the jury to avoid emotional responses that were not rooted in the trial evidence, the argument here encouraged the jury to make a retaliatory sentencing decision, rather than a decision based on a reasoned moral response to the evidence. As such, the argument was improper. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 812 (citations omitted). The Court also noted that the prosecutor's remarks encouraged the jury to further punish the Defendant for killings in Montgomery County for which he had previously been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court concluded that while these errors might have been harmless standing alone, we find that, considered cumulatively, the improper prosecutorial argument and the admission of irrelevant evidence affected the jury's sentencing determination to the Defendant's prejudice. Id. On close examination, this Court concludes that the challenged portion of the prosecutor's argument did not rise to the level of the argument found improper in Bigbee . The prosecutor's remarks essentially urged the jury not to be swayed by sympathy or emotion in response to the pleas of the Defendant's family for a sentence other than death. We find nothing improper in the prosecutor's argument.