Opinion ID: 1919690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The prosecution argued perceived lack of remorse as an aggravating circumstance.

Text: Davis argues that the State impermissibly argued that Davis should be sentenced to death because of a perceived lack of remorse. Davis argues that Reed v. State, 197 So.2d 811 (Miss. 1967), requires reversal of his death sentence. We disagree. In Reed, the defendant was charged with non-capital murder and did not take the stand during his trial. During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following comment: Look at the defendant. I have observed him for the past two days, and he sat and showed no emotion whatever during the trial of this cause. Reed, 197 So.2d at 814. This Court reversed Reed's conviction and stated: The argument of the prosecuting attorney in the instant case called the jury's attention to the fact that the defendant sat in the courtroom and showed no emotion, and the implication was clear that, for that reason, he must be guilty. Reed, at 815. In Reed, the prosecutor's remarks were tantamount to telling the jury that the defendant must be guilty because he sat emotionless through the trial and did not take the stand. In the case at bar, the prosecutor, during closing argument in the penalty phase, did not state that Davis had sat emotionless through the trial. Instead, the prosecutor argued that we have never heard one single witness say he ever felt sorry for what he did. Davis offered several mitigation witnesses during the penalty phase of his trial. The primary thrust of their testimony was that Davis was worthy of sympathy, forgiveness and mercy. The prosecutor simply argued that none of Davis' witnesses indicated that Davis was sorry for killing Biggert. The prosecution did not argue lack of remorse as an aggravator, nor was the jury instructed as to lack of remorse. Given the wide latitude afforded attorneys during closing argument, and after evaluating the context of the prosecutor's closing argument, we conclude that the prosecutor's comment does not warrant reversal. Ahmad, 603 So.2d at 846. Therefore, this assignment of error is without substantive merit.