Opinion ID: 71999
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comments on Mitigating Evidence

Text: 97 Cargill also contends that the prosecutor falsely and improperly told the jury that the information Mr. Cargill offered during the sentencing phase did not constitute mitigating evidence. Cargill cites three allegedly violative instances, two of which we emphasize in the following excerpt: 98 We brought on Sheriff John Adams who told you about the defendant's reputation, and that reputation was bad, for turbul[e]nce and violence. That's what we have to call fighting and stabbing and cutting and that kind of thing. It's a bad reputation. We--he also testified as to the defendant's reputation on things like larceny and so forth. We did get the one sister to come out and say finally, tell you about his drug abuse. Now, that's what you're passing on. This is the good old boy that you're going to be passing on. His mother loves him. That is not evidence. She begged for him. If you wanted begging, we could've given you some begging; but that's not the way it ought to be done. 99 ... The defendant's sister said she knew of that fine he was to pay in January in Harris County. His mother testified. She told us he was a good little boy. She didn't tell us anything about once he grew up. But we had emphasized some things that we already knew, that he was a dog-fighter, a compassionate sport.... And she further testified that he only cut his brother one time. That's because he was coming at him with a tire tool, just one time. 100 He had his sister up there. He helped her move out. He gave her money. Look, this is blood. And there's not a crime in this world that blood is going to overlook, is not going to mitigate, is not going to say does not deserve some special treatment, no matter what anybody does. So the mere fact that that happens proves nothing. 101 We also put forth the third statement to which Cargill objects in its broader context: 102 Mitigation--and notice the things that we're talking about don't affect the crime. They just either heighten the severity of it because of what the person is or lighten the impact of it. The Judge is going to charge you about this. Mitigation, and you're to consider mitigating factors. Now, what mitigating factors you have in this case, I don't know. [Defense counsel] is going to tell you. But you're to consider the aggravation, the evidence in aggravation, the evidence in mitigation.... 103 We are not surprised that Cargill's counsel never objected to these statements. These comments conveyed no prejudicial message to the jury--only that the mitigating evidence Cargill presented was of little force. We also note that the prosecutor went on to say, in discussing aggravating and mitigating factors, that 104 [t]here is not a question, there is not a doubt but that [Cargill] was engaged in an armed robbery while he committed the two murders, and that he was engaged in a murder when he committed the murder. 105 Well, if that's the case, does that end it? No, because for any reason or no reason, mitigating factors, if you can find them from this evidence, from the crime that was committed, from what was presented to you by the defense in this case, mitigating factors can wipe out these statutory aggravating circumstances and you are not bound, even though they are there to give the death penalty. You can say, This crime appropriately merits a life sentence in spite of all that has gone on since Monday morning at 9 o'clock [the time the trial commenced]. You are a jury. 106 Finally, the trial court clearly instructed the jury members that the responsibility of finding any mitigating or extenuating facts and circumstances rested with them. We conclude that Cargill's contentions lack merit. 107