Opinion ID: 1874414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Right to Open and Close

Text: Alley argues that it was error for the trial judge not to allow him to make his penalty phase closing argument after the prosecutor. He states that KRS 532.025(1), which involves all cases where the death penalty may be imposed, directs a number of procedures to be followed. Subsection (a) states that (T)he prosecuting attorney shall open and the defendant shall conclude the argument. Defense counsel requested this procedure to be followed, but the trial judge declined because the prosecutor had decided not to seek the death penalty. Consequently, the prosecutor was allowed to make the final closing argument. Here, the prosecution was not seeking the death penalty. There were no instructions or other indications to the jury that it could possibly impose a capital sentence. This was not a case where the death penalty was an option for the jury. Consequently, emphasis on the word may is unconvincing. Alley was not facing any possible death sentence, and thus he could not claim the benefit of being able to present a closing argument after the prosecution as if he were facing such a penalty. There was no error on the part of the trial judge.