Opinion ID: 1959936
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: preserved closing argument claims

Text: We first examine the arguments that Card properly preserved for appellate review. The prosecutor argued that the jury should not recommend a life sentence because there was no guarantee that Card actually would be imprisoned for life, stating: And there is nobody [that] can say that life is going, that he is going to serve a life sentence. No one can guarantee you that. No one can predict that. Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial but sustained the objection and provided jurors with a curative instruction, informing them to disregard the prosecutor's comments and that there is no parole. There is no early release from the sentence on a life sentence. In addition, the jurors were instructed that life without the possibility of parole meant life, natural life of a person, no parole. Card also objected to the prosecutor's argument pertaining to the victim impact testimony in which the prosecutor stated: One other thing, and the law that the judge is really not going to give you much instruction on it and that's victim impact evidence. It doesn't fit in this formula and there is no way that you can weigh it. But I suggest to you that you can.... Defense counsel immediately objected to this argument, stating that the prosecutor was inviting jurors to weigh something that is not an aggravating factor, is not under the statute ... he is inviting them to weigh it. Defense counsel also renewed his motion for a mistrial that he initially made following the State's improper argument that Card may not spend the rest of his life in prison if jurors recommended a life sentence. The trial court denied the renewed motion for a mistrial, but directed the State not to invite jurors to weigh victim impact evidence and to be careful not to imply that they should weigh it. Card also contends that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury's fears and emotions by referring to the jury as the conscience of the community: [I]n light of all of the other circumstances, the aggravating and the mitigating and when you're through [in weighing the evidence] you will not only be justified but warranted in recommending a sentence of death against this man for that heinous, atrocious and cruel, pitiless, vile, wicked premeditated robbery, kidnapping and murder. You are the conscience of this community . (Emphasis supplied.) Defense counsel immediately objected and requested a mistrial, stating, He cannot make the conscience of the community argument. He is trying to provoke a mistrial in this case.... That has been held many times to be an inappropriate closing argument. The trial court denied defense counsel's motion for a mistrial, stating, It is the old send a message speech that is a problem so I don't find anything objectionable regarding the conscience of the community argument. In reviewing Card's closing argument claims, we must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Card's motions for mistrial. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla. 1999). As this Court has stated, a trial court should grant a mistrial only when it is necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Id. at 547. Having reviewed the prosecutor's arguments, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial with respect to the prosecutor's comments. See Goodwin, 751 So.2d at 546. Although the prosecutor's comments pertaining to whether Card actually would serve a life sentence [6] and informing jurors that they could weigh the victim impact evidence as aggravation [7] were improper, the trial court sustained defense counsel's objections and, in the case of the comments pertaining to whether Card would actually serve a life sentence, gave specific curative instructions. With regard to the conscience of the community argument, we find that this does not amount to reversible error. The prosecutor's reference to the term was isolated and the prosecutor did not continue with the argument after the defense lawyer made an objection. Thus, given the context of the prosecutor's limited reference to the phrase conscience of community during closing argument in the penalty phase of a death penalty case where the jury is charged with determining the sentence, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial, as the comments were not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. Accordingly, we deny relief on this claim.