Opinion ID: 2215545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prosecutor's Comments at Sentencing

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments at sentencing improperly diminished the jury's sense of responsibility in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). In Caldwell, the Court found constitutional error in a prosecutor's arguments that the decision of the sentencing jury was not final because it was subject to judicial review. The Court held that resting a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere violates a defendant's eighth amendment rights. Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 329, 105 S.Ct. at 2639, 86 L.Ed.2d at 239. In the present case, in his rebuttal argument at sentencing, the prosecutor paraphrased defendant's closing argument and reminded the jury that defendant had said go ahead and kill me. The prosecutor told the jury that if defendant really felt that way, he would have used one of his own guns on himself. The prosecutor then said: But you don't want to die, Mr. Simpson. That is a ploy you are using against [the jurors], to make them feel guilty, to make them feel guilty if they sentence you to death, and it's not them who [are] sentencing you to death, Mr. Simpson, it's the State of Illinois. The law sentences you to death. The law that you couldn't follow    [t]hat's who did it, not these people, but you go ahead and make them feel guilty like you want to do. The prosecutor noted that the decision to impose the death penalty was a difficult one and urged the jury not to allow vengeance to motivate its decision to impose the death penalty, because that would be unfair to defendant. Later in his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to follow the law because the law is what convicts people, not anything else. It's not you giving him the death sentence, it's him. It was his road he chose. The prosecutor concluded by reminding the jury of its obligation to follow the law and impose the death sentence based on the evidence offered during the death penalty hearing. Defendant did not object to any of the prosecutor's comments. Because defendant failed to object to the remarks in the sentencing hearing, this issue is waived. People v. Coleman, 129 Ill.2d 321, 347, 135 Ill.Dec. 834, 544 N.E.2d 330 (1989). We further believe that the challenged prosecutorial comments do not rise to the level of plain error. See 134 Ill.2d R. 615(a). The evidence at the second stage of defendant's sentencing hearing was not closely balanced where the State introduced overwhelming aggravating evidence against defendant and defendant declined to present any evidence in mitigation. Further, we do not believe that the alleged error was so substantial that it deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing. Viewing the challenged comments in the context of the entire sentencing proceeding, we do not believe that the remarks misled the jury or diminished its sense of responsibility in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty. People v. Flores, 153 Ill.2d 264, 287, 180 Ill.Dec. 1, 606 N.E.2d 1078 (1992). The prosecutor's closing argument at sentencing emphasized the testimony of the witnesses and reviewed the aggravating factors and the lack of mitigating evidence. The prosecutor also asked the jury to sign the verdict form that indicated there were insufficient mitigating factors to preclude the imposition of the death penalty. Further, the challenged remarks were invited by defendant's own comments in his closing argument, and therefore were not error. People v. Hobley, 159 Ill.2d 272, 321, 202 Ill.Dec. 256, 637 N.E.2d 992 (1994). We also note that after the challenged remarks the prosecutor told the jury it's going to be your decision to make. After closing arguments, the trial judge carefully instructed the jury regarding its responsibilities. Moreover, the verdict forms properly stated that it was the jury that must decide the question of whether the death sentence should be imposed. Considering all of the arguments and instructions at the sentencing hearing, we do not believe that the jury's focus was diverted from its proper responsibility in sentencing.