Opinion ID: 2382089
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preserved Claims

Text: When the court allows argument over defense counsel's objection, the rulings are reversible only for abuse of discretion where argument is plainly unwarranted. State v. Weaver, 912 S.W.2d 499, 512 (Mo. banc 1995). Lyons objected to the prosecutor's statement, If you let him get off the hook without the death penalty, you will be sending the wrong message. It is proper for prosecutors to argue for the death penalty by requesting that the jury send a message of intolerance to the community. State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901, 919 (Mo. banc 1997). Lyons also objected to the following rebuttal argument: Remember the Hatfields and the McCoys? It is born out from American history ... The Hatfields an [sic] the McCoys is an example of retribution where a Hatfield killed a McCoy, a McCoy killed a Hatfield, and this feud went on for years with people killing each other until finally the state national guard was called out to help law enforcement to stop the problem. Ladies and gentlemen, the reason the criminal justice system has retribution is it takes the punishment factor and gives it to the government to impose so the family don't [sic] do it themselves. I am sure that some victims       Because our criminal justice system has capacity for retribution, the family does not have to take justice in their own hands. The families look to see and say, Will justice be done? This man took three lives. He committed the ultimate crime. Will he receive the ultimate punishment, and will justice be done and will he be given the ultimate penalty? Lyons argues that this argument makes reference to facts not before the jury. It is clear that the prosecutor was not introducing the Hatfield-McCoy feud as new evidence in closing argument, but as an illustration of the theory of retribution. Explaining legal theories of justification for the death penalty is proper argument. State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 332 (Mo. banc 1993). Isolated references to famous people in the context of describing a legal theory is not reversible error. See Shurn, 866 S.W.2d at 464. Lyons also argues that the above argument amounted to improper personalization. An argument is not personalized where it does not suggest a personal danger to the jury or their families if the defendant were to be acquitted. State v. Copeland, 928 S.W.2d 828, 842 (Mo. banc 1996). The prosecutor was explaining retribution in the hypothetical context of the victim's family retaliating against the defendant. No reference was made to any of the jurors or their families. Lyons next asserts that the following comments were inflammatory and improperly personalized: Some people describe the criminal justice system as a chain and say it is only as strong as its weakest link.       In this case we have witnesses who reported the crime. Friends who did their duties and told about the threats he made. The police made a good case. The prosecutors have worked as hard as we can. You, the jury have a role, please don't be a weak link. The use of the word you does not automatically amount to improper personalization. State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 323 (Mo. banc 1996). Again, there is no reference to the jurors or their families being in danger. It is proper to speak to the jury of the importance of its role in the criminal justice system. Id. at 322. The court did not err in overruling Lyons's objections.