Opinion ID: 2463945
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Penalty Phase Closing Argument (Clayton's point 3)

Text: As his third point, Clayton complains about two statements made in the state's rebuttal at penalty phase. It is important to note that during its penalty phase closing argument defense counsel stated and we live in a civilization where we should try to make the punishment fit the criminal. In its rebuttal the state responded by stating: I think counsel said one thing here that is interesting, in that I think it shows the fallacy of what he has suggested to you. And that is he said the punishment should fit the criminal. You will find that nowhere in our law, nowhere in our tradition. Punishment should fit the crime. That's what you'll find in our law and in our tradition. The focus should not be on the criminal, but should be on the crime, and I think that is instructive.    Punishment here must fit the crime, and if it doesn't, then it diminishes us all. We are not here to judge Cecil Clayton as a person, we are here to punish him for the crime he's committed. There is a difference. The crime calls for the ultimate penalty, and that's what I ask you for. A prosecutor has considerable leeway to make retaliatory arguments at closing. Parker, 886 S.W.2d at 922. A prosecutor may retaliate to an issue raised by the defense even if the prosecutor's comment would be improper. State v. Walls, 744 S.W.2d 791, 798 (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 181, 102 L.Ed.2d 150 (1988). The prosecutor's argument that the punishment should fit the crime was retaliation to defense counsel's statement that the punishment should fit the criminal since consideration of both the crime and the criminal is required to determine the appropriate sentence. See Storey, 901 S.W.2d at 902.