Opinion ID: 2547520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Help the Children Comments

Text: Driver contends that the following portion of the Commonwealth's closing argument concerning the possible consequence of the jury's decision on the children was impermissible: Forget Vera Driver for a minute. What about the kids? I asked you, `Could you think of any other victims?' You said, `Sure, the children.' They're innocent victims. That little girl was six years old. ... The little boy was eight. And they answered the door for Dan Melone. And I don't know what they said, but I, I would guess they said something like, `Are you here to help us? Are you here to help us?' Well, my question to you is, ladies and gentlemen, `Are you here to help them?' I've done all I can do. Dan's done all he can do. .... And don't you think these kids have a right to never, ever, ever have to answer the door for a police officer again and say something like `Are you here to help us?' We have held that neither the prosecutor, defense counsel, nor the court may make any comment at any time during a criminal trial about the consequences of a particular verdict. Payne v. Commonwealth, 623 S.W.2d 867 (Ky.1981). The argument recited above violated this rule by suggesting, out of sympathy for the children, that a verdict of guilty would spare them from a repetition of this type of event in the future. Further, the argument itself was based upon facts not in evidence. No testimony was presented at trial that the children said to Officer Melone Are you here to help us? [12] As such, the excluded statement should not have been suggested to the jury. Upon retrial, if the evidence is the same, the Commonwealth should avoid this line of argument.