Opinion ID: 1258573
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecutors' Closing Argument Remarks, Trial Strategy, and Direct Examination Pertaining to Victim Impact Evidence

Text: Finally, defendant has raised several assignments of error pertaining to victim impact evidence presented by the State during the penalty proceeding. Defendant first challenges the prosecutor's remarks during penalty proceeding closing argument that the victim's family placed numerous telephone calls to his cellular phone following his death. The prosecutor argued: MR. O'NEILL: And what did Alonzo Dingle tell you? . . . I heard the phone, some phone kept ringing, kept ringing, kept ringing, kept ringing. That was Matthew's family trying to find their kid MS. COSTNER: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. O'NEILL:trying to find their baby. Defendant argues that this was patently false, as discovery records show that all of the calls placed to the victim's cellular phone were not made by concerned family members, but by friends. This Court has articulated a two-part analysis for determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in such cases. `[T]his Court first determines if the remarks were improper. . . . Next, we determine if the remarks were of such a magnitude that their inclusion prejudiced defendant, and thus should have been excluded by the trial court.' Peterson, 361 N.C. at 606-07, 652 S.E.2d at 229 (quoting Jones, 355 N.C. at 131, 558 S.E.2d at 106 (alterations in original)). Even assuming, arguendo, that the prosecutor's remarks were improper, defendant cannot show that the trial court's failure to sustain his objection was prejudicial. The challenged remarks were obviously made for the purpose of showing the love the victim's family felt toward him. Moreover, considering (1) the evidence detailed above as to the impact of the victim's death on his family, (2) the fact someone was concerned of his whereabouts as indicated by the ringing of his cellular phone, and (3) the trial court's instruction to the jury that if your recollection of the evidence differs from that of the Court or of the district attorneys, you are to rely solely upon your recollection of the evidence in your deliberations, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice. Additionally, defendant asserts that the prosecution tried to keep the victim's attempt to purchase marijuana from the jury by eliciting incomplete information from Detective Rowe and by arguing to the jury that defense counsel's exploration of the issue was an attempt to smear the victim. However, the jury was allowed to hear the relevant evidence through defense counsel's cross-examination of Detective Rowe, in which Detective Rowe stated affirmatively that he had information that the victim was trying to purchase drugs at the time that he was shot. Thus, even had the prosecutor attempted to conceal this evidence, it came before the jury and defendant cannot show prejudice. Finally, defendant asserts that the prosecutor posed questions assuming facts not in evidence by asking witnesses about medication used by the victim's father. The prosecution asked both the victim's stepmother and his grandmother whether his father was taking medication and, if so, why. On both occasions, the trial court sustained defense counsel's objection to the question of why the victim's father was taking medication. This Court has held that where the trial court sustains defendant's objection, he has no grounds to except, and there is no prejudice. State v. Robinson, 355 N.C. 320, 341, 561 S.E.2d 245, 259 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1006, 123 S.Ct. 488, 154 L.Ed.2d 404 (2002). Thus, defendant's argument is without merit. Defendant's related assignments of error are overruled, and his Motion for Appropriate Relief is denied.