Opinion ID: 6109767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of Rebuttal Closing Argument

Text: Next, Smith argues that the court impermissibly allowed the State to go beyond the scope of the penalty-phase rebuttal closing argument and allowed the State to make emotionally charged comments. During the defense's closing, Smith's attorney stated, [I]t doesn't matter if you give him life without parole or if you give him the death penalty. The only way my client will come out of that penitentiary is on a funeral home director's gurney. Once the State began its reply, Smith objected and argued that the State could not rehash its arguments and could only respond to the points he raised in his closing argument. The court ruled that the State could address Smith's argument that there was no difference between sentencing him to life or death and that the State would have the opportunity to discuss the sentencing forms. However, the court clarified that while it would allow the State to discuss the aggravating circumstances pertaining to their choice to pursue the death penalty, it would be limited in how much it could discuss. The State then addressed the jury as follows: When we started this journey on Monday, counsel for the defendant said the State does not seek the death penalty very often. That is correct. The State seeks the death penalty when certain factors come before us. In this case, the motive was a factor. The fact that this young lady was pregnant and that means two lives are snuffed out at the same time. Another factor [t]he State takes into consideration is the manner of the murder. This morning when we were doing Closing Arguments, I was referring to this as a hate murder in that just go shoot her with a shotgun and put her out of her misery. That's not what happened. You have what we consider torture, to be a bow and arrow through your body. So, that is a factor that [t]he State took into consideration, a huge factor, huge. In these kinds of cases, lack of remorse. What happens in these cases? Dear God, forgive me for what I have done. That's remorse, as opposed to, Crack head, dope whore, all that stuff. Now, with that being said, no more emotion. The State in turn argues that Smith did not make a contemporaneous objection to the prosecutions rebuttal. See Lard v. State , 2014 Ark. 1 at 26, 431 S.W.3d 249 , 268. Smith objected when the prosecution expressed its intent to discuss the sentencing forms and its decision to pursue the death penalty. The circuit court ruled against him. We hold that he has preserved this issue for our review. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-602(5)(C) (Repl. 2013) specifically permits the State to reply in rebuttal during closing arguments. The circuit court is given broad discretion to control  counsel in closing arguments, and we do not interfere with that discretion absent a manifest abuse of it. Lee v. State , 326 Ark. 529 , 532, 932 S.W.2d 756 (1996). Remarks made during argument that require reversal are rare and require an appeal to the jurors' passions. Wetherington v. State , 319 Ark. 37 , 41, 889 S.W.2d 34 , 36 (1994). The circuit court considered Smith's argument and specifically found that he stated that there would be no difference between life imprisonment and death. The court noted that there is a difference between death and life in prison and allowed the prosecution to discuss why it pursued the death penalty. The State briefly summarized the reasons why it chose to do so; namely, that Smith had shot the victim with a crossbow and that he lacked remorse. Smith cannot show that the circuit court manifestly abused its discretion or that the State's comments were specifically designed to appeal to the jurors' passions.