Opinion ID: 2460227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Decision to Seek Death

Text: Johnston asserts that the prosecutor improperly invoked the authority of his office by stating that he had carefully decided to seek the death penalty. Johnston's counsel did not object. The prosecutor said: There are times when murder in the first degree may involve punishment. But in keeping with the concept that the punishment must fit the crime, there are times where we representatives of the State seek the highest penalty. We don't seek that lightly because it's not sought in every case. And it is sought for good reason. It is sought out because of hard core evidence, and I would assure you it's not a decision that's come to lightly. (Emphasis ours). In support of his argument, Johnston cites Newlon v. Armontrout, 693 F.Supp. 799, 805 (W.D.Mo.1988), aff'd, 885 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir.1989), and State v. Evans, 820 S.W.2d 545, 548 (Mo.App.1991). In each of those cases the prosecutor did far more than relate that he had decided to seek the death penalty. In Newlon , the prosecutor stated that he had never seen anyone who deserved the death penalty more than the defendant. And in Evans , the prosecutor stated that he would not have brought the charge against an innocent defendant. Both cases are patently distinguishable. The motion court did not clearly err in overruling Johnston's Rule 29.15 motion on this point.