Opinion ID: 561210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper Statements by Prosecutor.

Text: 12 Petitioner argues that he was denied his right to a reliable capital sentencing proceeding when the state urged that he be sentenced on the basis of three impermissible factors, including prosecutorial argument regarding victim impact. This court considered the substance of these statements and the resulting prejudice at length in its first opinion. 21 Petitioner, in the district court, conceded that his claim of improper closing argument by the prosecutor was exhausted on direct appeal. 22 He argues now that Booth v. Maryland 23 is new law mandating reconsideration of this issue. Booth represents new law, if at all, only as to the prosecutor's statement at sentencing that the victim's family would be facing the holiday season without him. This court's determination as to the propriety of the remaining two prosecutorial comments is not affected by the rule set forth in Booth. 24 13 In Booth, the Supreme Court held that introduction of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial contained information irrelevant to the sentencing decision and, therefore, violated the Eighth Amendment. 25 The Court reasoned that [a]llowing the jury to rely on a [victim impact statement] could result in imposing the death sentence because of factors about which the defendant was unaware, and that were irrelevant to the decision to kill. 26 The Court in Booth concluded that introduction of a victim impact statement creates an impermissible risk that the capital sentencing decision will be made in an arbitrary manner. 27 14 In his penalty phase closing argument, the prosecutor in Mr. Johnson's case commented: 15 You have heard some evidence presented by the defense here designed to tug at your heart strings, to show you that the defendant was a living, breathing human being with feelings possessed by an ordinary person. You have become acquainted with his family here today. Another family, perhaps you haven't become closely associated with, that is the Hadden family, will be facing this holiday season one short. 28 16 Petitioner's challenge to the prosecutor's passing comment is distinguishable from the victim impact evidence presented by the state in Booth. 29 Unlike Booth, the prosecutorial comment challenged by Mr. Johnson is not state-sanctioned evidence of victim impact submitted as part of the state's case; nor does it contain detailed opinions and characterizations of victim impact. Thus, in our previous opinion, we held that, as an element of Johnson's prosecutorial misconduct claim, this statement was not so unconstitutionally prejudicial as to render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. 30 Now considered in the context of Booth, we likewise conclude that the prosecutor's statement does not rise to the level of constitutional error condemned by the Court in Booth. Because we hold that the prosecutor's comments did not create a risk that Johnson's death sentence would be based on considerations that are 'constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the capital sentencing process,'  31 we affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief. 17