Opinion ID: 1898079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Instructing the Jury to Convict

Text: Defendant also claims that during his guilt- and penalty-phase summations, the prosecutor erroneously told the jury that it had a duty to convict him. In his guilt-phase summation, the prosecutor stated, in relevant part: And so we come to the end. We come to the time for the truth and maybe you still have in your mind that question: Why is the truth so necessary? Why    do I have to face perhaps a hard question and find him guilty of purposeful or knowing murder? Why can't I just take the easy way out? Why can't I accept the [defendant's] invitation [to convict defendant of felony murder]? I could tell you, and I will, that it is the law. But you may say to me, the law is only cold words on cold paper, and you will not have gotten the full understanding. I could say to you, and I will, that is your oath.         Consider your oath, not as old words and cold paper, but as a warm and solemn obligation to tell the truth, the obligation of flesh and blood to flesh and blood. [Emphasis added.] Then during his closing remarks at the penalty phase, the prosecutor continued that same theme: And so one final time I'm going to ask you to live up to your oath and apply [the] law. I'm going to ask you to reratify and exhalt that law which holds us together. I'm going to ask you to return the verdict that says that Frank Pennington alone is responsible    I'm going to ask you to return the verdict that's called for by your oath, by the law, by the evidence, that the aggravating factors here, shotgun murder, robbery, here far outweigh those minuscule excuses that he has proffered.         I will thank you now one last time for your courage not to flinch in applying the law. Courage and weigh well. [Emphasis added.] Like comments on the need to protect society from defendant's future crimes, remarks implying that jurors will violate their oaths if they fail to convict or return a death sentence are improper. See Rose, supra, 112 N.J. at 521, 548 A. 2d 1058 (citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 30, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1053, 84 L.Ed. 2d 1, 22 (1985) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (Many courts historically have viewed such warnings about not `doing your job' as among the most egregious forms of prosecutorial misconduct)); State v. Knight, 63 N.J. 187, 193, 305 A. 2d 793 (1973); State v. Johnson, 31 N.J. 489, 512-13, 158 A. 2d 11 (1960). The State's argument that these comments were not designed to intimidate the jury but to convince them not to accept defendant's invitation to convict him of felony murder is without merit. Although the prosecution in a criminal case may use forceful language in summing up the State's case, Johnson, supra, 31 N.J. at 510, 158 A. 2d 11, it may not, as here, explicitly tell the jurors that they are obligated by their oath to return a particular verdict. Such emotion-laden language poses a significant risk that the jury [will] be diverted from its duty to determine defendant's punishment based on the evidence and in accordance with the trial court's charge. Rose, supra, 112 N.J. at 521, 548 A. 2d 1058. It is tantamount, as defendant contends, to a deliberate attempt to intimidate the jury into returning verdicts of capital murder and of death.