Opinion ID: 4237534
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duty of the jury argument

Text: ¶115 Hulsey claims that it was error for the prosecutor to quote poet John Donne at the end of the penalty phase by proclaiming: 35 STATE V. HULSEY Opinion of the Court [E]very person’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, and in this case, in light of the jury instructions and what has been presented, it tolls for each of you to do your duty and return a verdict of death. Hulsey argues that this was an improper argument insinuating that it was the jury’s duty to find death appropriate. It was error for the prosecutor to suggest the jurors had a duty to find a death sentence appropriate. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18 (1985) (telling the jury it must “do its job” was error); see also Roque, 213 Ariz. at 224 ¶ 128 (misconduct exists where “remarks called to the jurors’ attention matters that they should not consider”). The context of the remark, however, was not of such magnitude to influence the jurors and cause Hulsey prejudice. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 460 ¶ 151 (2004) (improper remarks must influence the jury to be reversible). The jurors were correctly instructed that they should consider all mitigation evidence and should choose a life sentence if they found the mitigation evidence sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Baldwin, 211 Ariz. at 473 ¶ 21 (“[T]he determination whether mitigation is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency . . . is a sentencing decision to be made by each juror . . . .”).