Opinion ID: 2594969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: State's Rebuttal Closing Argument during Penalty Phase

Text: Bridges claims that, in the rebuttal closing argument during the penalty phase, prosecutor Guymon improperly and repeatedly used terms such as aggravating and aggravation to refer to evidence that was not relevant to the statutory aggravating circumstance. According to Bridges, Guymon's repeated references suggest that these references were not inadvertent. [8] Bridges argues that the references were misleading, given Guymon's comparison of this evidence to the lack of mitigating evidence, his reference to the kidnapping aggravating circumstance, and asserted ambiguity in the jury instructions. Although Bridges did not object to Guymon's references, it is essential that we carefully review his claim, given the serious impropriety alleged. NRS 177.055(2)(c) mandates that we consider whether the death penalty has been imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any arbitrary factor. Because the term aggravating circumstance is a term of art, misleading references to aggravation or aggravating could taint the jury's weighing of the legitimate aggravating and mitigating circumstances, resulting in the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. Further, this court has indicated greater flexibility in considering issues of prosecutorial misconduct that were not preserved for appeal where a defendant's life is at stake. Emmons v. State, 107 Nev. 53, 61, 807 P.2d 718, 723 (1991). Although we strongly criticize prosecutor Guymon's characterization of the evidence in terms of aggravation and aggravating, [9] we have carefully considered the issue and determine that the error was harmless under the unique facts and circumstances of this case. Three factors support our conclusion. First, the jury instructions reflected that only one aggravating circumstance was actually alleged, and the special verdict form itself only included one aggravating circumstance. [10] Second, in the State's original closing remarks, prosecutor Wall had carefully guided the jury through the steps for determining the appropriate penalty, including the weighing of the alleged aggravating circumstance versus any mitigating circumstances. Prosecutor Wall explained that there's only one aggravating circumstance alleged, that the murder occurred during a kidnapping. Third and finally, the weighing process could not have been tainted because there was little to weigh on the side of mitigation. As discussed above, the aggravating circumstance unequivocally outweighed any mitigating circumstances.