Opinion ID: 2242593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Closing Argument at Sentencing

Text: During closing argument at the aggravation-mitigation stage of sentencing, the prosecutor stated: You tell us whose life has more value. The innocent mother and wife, or this defendant who made his decisions? Defendant argues that this statement was improper and that, as a result of this statement, he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. Defendant concedes that no objection was made to this comment at trial and that the claim of error is therefore procedurally defaulted. Defendant also argues, however, that we may consider the error under the plain error doctrine. For the following reasons, we find no plain error. `Any error related to    comments to which no objections were made would normally be considered waived unless the comments were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair trial or so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process.' People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill.2d 235, 283-84, 138 Ill.Dec. 233, 547 N.E.2d 202 (1989), citing People v. Albanese, 104 Ill.2d 504, 518, 85 Ill.Dec. 441, 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984). While we agree with defendant that the whose life has more value comment was improper, we cannot say that it was so improper as to warrant reversal of defendant's sentence. Considered in the entirety of the context of the State's closing argument, the comment did not deny defendant a fair sentencing hearing or threaten deterioration of the judicial process. Moreover, the jury was properly instructed that the evidence which it could consider consisted only of the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits which the court had received. Consequently, we find no plain error.