Opinion ID: 1520503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: argument at sentencing

Text: Calhoun asserts that the prosecutor's closing argument contained improper, irrelevant, inflammatory and prejudicial arguments which should not be made in a capital trial. He refers to three things. He objects because the prosecutor said, Mr. Townsend, Mr. Cromwell, it says in the Bible: Death cometh, final, certain. Then he says that the State improperly asked the jury to compare the circumstances of the death of the decedent to that of an execution sanctioned by the law. Finally, he states that the prosecutor improperly suggested to the jury that the petitioner may not actually serve a life sentence if it was imposed. He argued to the jury that the question of not being paroled was only `a possibility' which the jury could not speculate on.... As to this last point, as we have just said under subsection (I) of this section of the opinion, it was the defense who introduced into evidence the issue of a possible mandatory life sentence. This argument was in evident response to that issue and we do not believe Calhoun can be heard to complain. What the State said immediately after its reference to the inevitability and finality of death was: We would all, I am sure, like to choose the manner of our death. Peaceful perhaps, surrounded by loved ones, in the setting of tranquility without pain or suffering. Of course, we can't. Some have to face death in manners harsher than others. Phil Metz was one of those. Phil Metz faced death, suffered death, under as excruciating set of circumstances as one can possibly imagine. His life was taken from him unawares without a second ability to pause to reflect to know that he was to expire, left to die in a pool of blood and having a man stand over him and just executed him and proceeded to steal six thousand filthy dollars and run away. In subsection (F) of this section of the opinion we have quoted from Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 412-13, 326 A.2d 707, 714 (1974), as to closing argument. It will be recalled that we there said that generally counsel has the right to make any comment or argument that is warranted by the evidence proved or inferences therefrom and that the prosecuting attorney is as free to comment legitimately and to speak fully, although harshly, on the accused's action and conduct if the evidence supports his comments, as is accused's counsel to comment on the nature of the evidence and the character of the witnesses which the prosecution produced. The argument as to the certainty of death did not exceed the bounds of fair comment. The argument where it is contended that the State improperly compared the circumstances of the death of the decedent to that of an execution sanctioned by law was as follows: You are here now to contemplate the death of another man, James Arthur Calhoun. His life won't be taken from him in that fashion. He has had the benefit of a fair and exhaustive trial submitted to 12 citizens of the community. He has had the opportunity to present his life to you. That determination is going to be made by calm deliberation among you ladies and gentlemen and decided according to the law, not based on a desire to inflict cruelty on any person. Phil Metz wasn't given that opportunity lying there in a pool of blood. James Arthur Calhoun is given that opportunity and will know the manner in which his death will come. Phil Metz's was undeserved; this man has forfeited his right to live among us under the law. Counsel then went on to refer, although not by name, to Furman v. Georgia and the fault which the Supreme Court found with all of the existing death penalty statutes in the United States. He explained, The main reason for it was that juries were given unfettered discretion in deciding who should live and who should die. Counsel explained the Maryland Death Sentence Statute and the fact that the scheme in Maryland [of] guided discretion consists of [the jury's] being required to identify certain aggravating factors and then balance them against any mitigating factors that may exist and then make an ultimate determination of whether the mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence would outweigh any aggravating factors which of course have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Placed in context the argument does not exceed the bounds of fair comment.