Opinion ID: 1476684
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Act of power ... and cruelty

Text: The prosecutor, during summation, read back Dunn's testimony regarding Harris's actions leading up to the rape. He then commented on that testimony. The prosecutor stated, Why did he sexually assault Kristin Huggins? Surely nobody believes that standing under the Southard Street Bridge on that rainy, foggy day, Ambrose Harris was suddenly overcome with sexual passion. No, the sodomy here was an act of power. An act of cruelty. An act of contempt for Kristin Huggins. It was an act of dominion and control.... And then with cruel deliberation, he planned the killing of Kristin. Defendant now complains that his counsel should have objected to those comments. In our assessment, the prosecutor's comments were a fair characterization of the State's evidence and were relevant to the appropriate weight of the (4)(g) aggravating factor (murder in the course of a sexual assault or other specified crime) in the circumstances. The State's evidence depicted a lengthy terrorization by defendant, Harris II, supra, 165 N.J. at 322, 757 A. 2d 221, of which the sexual assault was a part. The prosecutor's words are not so distinct from our own characterization of the crime: The cold-bloodedness and brutality of defendant are evidenced by the fact that defendant specifically asked Dunn to watch him kill Huggins.... Huggins did not provoke defendant to a sudden intemperate act. Nor did he kill her in the midst of violent sexual frenzy. To the contrary, for two hours she was a helpless victim of a cool and deliberate carjacker.... Defendant was aware of how helpless Huggins felt. [ Ibid. ] Whether described as cold-blooded and brutal, or as an act of cruelty and power, the words are apt to the evidence and pertinent to the aggravating factor under consideration by the jury. The prosecutor's comments were proper. Because they were relevant to defendant's blameworthiness, the weight of the (4)(g) aggravator, and were a characterization of the evidence, defense counsel did not have grounds to object.