Opinion ID: 1711324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Community Responsibility/Appeal to Fear and Prejudices

Text: Roberts claims his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor's arguments that the jury should recommend the death sentence to protect the community. The prosecutor told the jury, You're not representing yourself in this case, you're representing the community. Recommending the death sentence would be a statement of the community that this type of crime is outrageous. The murder was horrible and it effects everybody, it reduces the quality of life for everybody in the whole county of St. Louis, a crime like this is not just a one person crime. The prosecutor exhorted, This is not gonna happen in St. Louis County, we're going to deter other murderers from committing these crimes and we're gonna punish those that do. We have to protect ourselves. Roberts contends his counsel should have objected because these arguments impermissibly urged the jury to convict in order to protect community values or deter future lawbreaking. Roberts also contends that the prosecutor's statements misled the jury to believe that the decision to impose the death penalty should be based upon community standards rather than the evidence presented at trial. As previously stated regarding similar arguments made during the guilt-phase closing arguments, a prosecutor may argue the need for strong law enforcement, the prevalence of crime in the community, and that conviction of the defendant is part of the jury's duty to uphold the law and prevent crime. State v. Olds, 603 S.W.2d 501, 511 (Mo. banc 1980). The prosecutor may urge the jury to consider the effect upon society if the law is not upheld. Id. Roberts's argument that the jury based its sentencing recommendation on community values rather than the evidence is equally meritless. The jury was properly instructed that arguments are not evidence, and that in order to recommend the death sentence, the jury had to find at least one aggravating circumstance based on the evidence. There was overwhelming evidence in this case to support a recommendation of the death penalty. It borders the frivolous to suggest that the jury based its sentencing recommendation in this case on something other than the overwhelming evidence of aggravating circumstances. The prosecutor's arguments were permissible and were not misleading. Defense counsel could not be found ineffective in failing to object in this instance. State v. Weaver, 912 S.W.2d 499, 518 (Mo.1995). e.