Opinion ID: 6358387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mitigating circumstances as excuses

Text: Third, Brown argues that the prosecutor improperly disregarded the evidence presented by the defense in support of mitigating circumstances as mere excuses for Brown's behavior in killing Crawford. This claim is based upon the following excerpt from the prosecutor's closing argument in the penalty phase of the trial: What the defense is going to ask you to do -- as I understood the testimony they put on for the last day and a half -- is asking you to use his early childhood to excuse . Well, they don't want this sob story, however true a lot of it is, they don't want to actually reflect on his -- his character as it was at 25. They want to use it to excuse his bad character. They want you to say, Sure, you made those horrible choices and killed Robert Crawford; please excuse it because of what happened. Ms. Rubino: Objection. The Court: Sustained. N.T., 6/2/2005, at 80 (emphasis added). Brown insists that these arguments clouded the jury's understanding of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and  that in addition to objecting to them, his counsel should also have requested a curative instruction advising the jury that mitigating circumstances are not excuses. Brown claims that appellate counsel could not have possessed a strategic basis for her omission, and that but for the prosecutor's improper argument and his counsel's failure to request a curative instruction, there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have found (e)(8) mitigation and concluded that this mitigation outweighs the aggravating evidence presented. 19 Brown's Brief at 55. In support of this claim, Brown argues that in Eddings v. Oklahoma , 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), the Supreme Court declared mitigating evidence cannot be disregarded as an 'excuse.'  Brown's Brief at 55. Brown's reliance upon Eddings is misplaced. In that case, a trial judge presiding over a bench trial cast aside, as a matter of law, all of the mitigating evidence presented by the appellant on the grounds that it was improper to consider mitigating evidence. Eddings , 455 U.S. at 108-09 , 102 S.Ct. 869 . The intermediate appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the evidence of the appellant's family history did not excuse his behavior. Id. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence of the appellant's violent upbringing was relevant mitigating evidence that should have been considered. Id. at 114-15 , 102 S.Ct. 869 . The high Court remanded with instructions for the lower court to consider and weigh it. Id. at 117 , 102 S.Ct. 869 . In this case, in substantial contrast to Eddings , the jury was not precluded from hearing any mitigating evidence relating to Brown's childhood or family history. We agree with the Chief Justice that the prosecutor's remarks were plainly improper. Mitigating evidence is not in the nature of excuses for the crime committed. Nevertheless, under the circumstances presented here, counsel's failure to request a curative instruction for the prosecutor's clear impropriety during closing argument does not constitute a basis for PCRA relief, as Brown cannot demonstrate that he suffered prejudice. Immediately after closing arguments, the trial court charged the jurors on mitigating circumstances in full detail, explaining every mitigator they should consider and how each of the mitigators should be considered. N.T., 6/2/2005, at 104-22. Further, directly contrary to the prosecutor's contention that mitigating factors are excuses, the trial court emphasized to the jury, both at the outset of the penalty phase of the trial and again in her charge, the importance of mitigating factors, describing them as one of the law's safeguards against unjust death sentences. Id. at 120 . Given the trial judge's precise and thorough instructions, no grounds exist on which to conclude that the jury did not understand its clear obligations in the penalty phase of the trial, including with respect to mitigating factors. Brown has not demonstrated that a curative instruction during the prosecutor's closing argument would have resulted in a different outcome in the penalty phase of the trial, and thus no relief is due on this claim.