Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 63

Heading: Commonwealth's Penalty Phase Closing Argument

Text: Appellant complains at length that the Commonwealth's penalty phase closing argument was highly improper and denied him due process of law. We have reviewed the Commonwealth's argument in its entirety and have found nothing improper. Nonetheless, we briefly address Appellant's complaints. The Commonwealth was entitled to refer to Appellant's entire criminal history, even though some of his prior convictions are outside of the statutory list of aggravating circumstances rendering him eligible for the death penalty. KRS 532.025(1)(b) expressly permits such reference. The Commonwealth did not use Appellant's escape conviction as a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance amounting to a claim of future dangerousness. Appellant's claim to the contrary is not supported by the record. The Commonwealth's reference to Appellant's escape conviction was a fair commentary on his criminal background. The Commonwealth did not minimize the jury's responsibility in sentencing Appellant. Nor did it inform the jury that its decision was only a recommendation. Cf. Ice, 667 S.W.2d at 676. It is not error for the Commonwealth to ask the jury to fix a punishment that fits the crime. Likewise, the Commonwealth's reference to Appellant's demeanor in the courtroom was not improper, nor was it a comment on Appellant's exercise of his right to remain silent. The Commonwealth's very brief statement that the jury speak[s] for the community was undoubtedly harmless. The comment was fleeting and did not appeal to the jurors' fears or prejudices. The Commonwealth did not make a Golden Rule argument to the jury, nor did it attempt to use sensationalizing tactics. The closing argument cannot fairly be characterized as an emotional or inflammatory appeal to the jury on behalf of the family. Cf. Clark v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 793, 797 (Ky.1991). Appellant claims that the Commonwealth continually misstated the law in its penalty phase closing argument. Upon review, the Commonwealth's statements simply urged the jury to draw certain inferences from the evidence. [T]he Commonwealth's Attorney is allowed reasonable latitude in argument to persuade the jurors the matter should not be dealt with lightly. Lynem v. Commonwealth, 565 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Ky.1978). The Commonwealth did not exceed these bounds.