Opinion ID: 1768472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeals Process Argument

Text: In closing, the defense argued: And it might be said that you should impose two more sentences of death to make a total of three sentences of death because maybe he won't be executed the first time around. Missouri is a killing state. We're right up there behind Texas and Florida. We kill our killers. We do that in Missouri. ... In those rare instances where you might have heard somebody under sentence of death has had their life spared, chalk it up to a higher intervention. The prosecutor responded: Ms. Davis may be real sure that this defendant isn't going to get out, but I'm not. MS. DAVIS [Defense Counsel]: Objection, personalization. Calls for speculation, Judge. THE COURT: The objection will be overruled. MS. KOCH [Prosecutor]: Ms. Davis mentioned to you about those few occasions where a person's life is spared. She didn't talk to you about the many appeals that people go through. MS. DAVIS [Defense Counsel]: Judge, I'm going to object to the levels of appeal. That's not relevant and not been in evidence in this trial. THE COURT: The objection will be overruled. Proceed. MS. KOCH [Prosecutor]: She didn't talk to you about the many different levels of appeals that these cases go through. She didn't talk to you about the Federal Court of Appeals and how often those cases get overturned on appeal because they're death penalty cases. She didn't talk to you about any of that, did she? And she didn't talk to you about escape. You heard the testimony of the unit caseworker that came in here and testified in front of you. There has been one escape from Potosi in the last three years. And what did John Middleton do when he had the opportunity in the Harrison County Jail? He tried to escape. Defendant contends trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to the prosecutor's response, and for not objecting on additional grounds. He also claims direct appeal counsel was ineffective for only challenging the response under Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). See Middleton, 998 S.W.2d at 529-30. First, defense counsel's argument reasonably complemented her excessiveness theme. She assured the jurors that defendant would probably be executed for his prior murder conviction. The prosecutor's response properly noted that executions do not inexorably follow death sentences. Defendant contends counsel should have objectedand appellate counsel should have argued based on the objection actually madethat the prosecutor argued facts outside the record. The prosecutor, however, did not explicitly argue a fact outside the record. Instead, she alerted the jurors to the possibility that an appellate court could reverse the convictiona correct statement of the law in response to defendant's argument. See State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 321 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 972, 117 S.Ct. 403, 136 L.Ed.2d 317 (1996). Defendant further asserts that the prosecutor implied an untrue fact that federal courts frequently overturn death penalty convictionswhen she said: She didn't talk to you about the Federal Court of Appeals and how often those cases get overturned on appeal because they're death penalty cases. The frequency of appellate reversal is a fact outside the record, which the prosecutor should not reference. See State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 900-01 (Mo. banc 1995). Even so, defendant was not prejudiced. The prosecutor referred to the appellate reversal rate obliquely, if at all. If the argument had been challenged, it is not reasonably probable that defendant would have received a life sentence. Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly suggested that he could be released if not sentenced to death. The prosecutor began her rebuttal: Ms. Davis may be real sure that this defendant isn't going to get out, but I'm not. In context, this preface refers to the possibility of appellate reversala correct statement of the lawand the possibility of escapea reference to defendant's future dangerousness. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d at 321; State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 107 (Mo. banc 1994). The prosecutor could invoke these possibilities in responding to the defense. Middleton, 998 S.W.2d at 530 (A prosecutor has considerable leeway to make retaliatory arguments in closing. A defendant may not provoke a reply and then assert error.); State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 370, 378 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 954, 118 S.Ct. 378, 139 L.Ed.2d 295 (1997). In sum, the prosecutor's argument was proper rebuttal. Neither trial nor appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging it. To the extent that the prosecutor implied federal courts frequently reverse death sentences, Defendant was not prejudiced.