Opinion ID: 2582516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The propriety of jury instructions and closing argument

Text: Gallego contends that certain jury instructions were erroneous and that the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument. Gallego did not object below to the instructions or remarks. Failure to object during trial generally precludes appellate consideration of an issue. [28] Despite such failure, this court has the discretion to address an error if it was plain and affected the defendant's substantial rights. [29] Normally, the defendant must show that an error was prejudicial in order to establish that it affected substantial rights. [30] Gallego complains that instruction numbers 10 and 29 and a remark by the prosecutor failed to inform jurors that they had to weigh any mitigating circumstances against aggravating circumstances before considering other evidence offered by the State against Gallego. No error occurred: the jury instructions and the prosecutor's remarks as a whole correctly informed the jury to consider the mitigating evidence. [31] Gallego also claims that instruction number 9 was erroneous under Geary v. State. [32] This claim has no merit. Gallego complains that the prosecutor commented in closing argument that the defense had not rebutted the alleged aggravators. This comment was improper. To obtain a death sentence, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one aggravating circumstance exists and that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh any mitigating evidence. [33] Thus, the prosecutor's remark improperly suggested that the defense had a burden to disprove aggravating circumstances. [34] Nevertheless, the remark here was extremely brief and general, and there was overwhelming evidence to prove the three aggravating circumstances. Even assuming the error was plain, we conclude that the remark did not affect Gallego's substantial rights.