Opinion ID: 166399
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Demeaning Mitigation

Text: 91 Mr. Thornburg also argues that the prosecutor improperly demeaned his mitigation evidence as excuses. Tr. IV at 199-202. We disagree. The prosecutor used the word excuse on two occasions. The first time, the prosecutor was merely incorporating the word excuse as employed by defense counsel in his closing argument moments before: Not saying the alcohol isn't a defense in the sense of an excuse. There is no excuse. We're asking you for mercy. . . . Id. at 199. In response the prosecutor said, The State and defense counsel have one thing in common. Defense counsel just said there are no excuses. Folks, there's not. There cannot be excuses for what these three men suffered. Id. at 199-200. 92 Further along in his argument, the prosecutor again referred to the mitigation evidence as excuses but this comment was equally proper because the prosecutor was commenting on the express language of the jury instructions. The mitigation instructions specified that the jury could consider evidence produced by Mr. Thornburg that he acted under circumstances which tended to justify, excuse or reduce the crime. St. Ct. Rec. at 503. The prosecutor said, What facts have you heard that justify, excuse or reduce this crime? Any? Any of the excuses? Tr. IV at 201. This characterization of the mitigation evidence, invited as it was by the jury instructions and defense counsel, falls easily within the wide latitude of argument allowed to prosecutors.