Opinion ID: 1897771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defendant Deserved The Death Penalty?

Text: During closing argument, the prosecuting attorney described the terrible injury suffered by Thomas Mallory and stated: I submit to you that this was an evil crime, to shoot a man in the head. I will submit that this is the type of crime to which you should sentence this man to death. Ratliff promptly objected, only to be overruled by the Circuit Court. Ratliff argues that this comment about sentencing him to death was designed to improperly inflame and arouse the passions of the jury and was clearly error. In reply, we are told the prosecutor was merely expressing his belief that this was a serious crime deserving of the harshest possible penalty. The jury was properly instructed on the verdicts it could return and the death penalty was not one of them. In Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 209 (Miss. 1985), this Court commented: ... . The State and defense counsel should be given wide latitude in their arguments to a jury. This is inherent in, and indispensable to, our adversary system. Courts should be very careful in limiting the free play of ideas, imagery and the personalities of counsel in their argument to a jury. The prosecutor's argument in Johnson contained inferences to the diety, remarks about the personal friendship between the district attorney and the victim, comments to defense counsel, expression of personal belief in the defendant's guilt, as well as statements of frustration in prosecuting these cases. In affirming the conviction the Johnson Court stated, No appellate court would be warranted in reversing this case on the basis of the argument made by the district attorney. Johnson, 477 So.2d at 210. See also Gray v. State, 351 So.2d 1342, 1346-47 (Miss. 1977). While the prosecutor's comment in the instant case may have been inflammatory in that it was designed to arouse the passions and prejudices of a jury, it was legally harmless in light of the fact that the jury was not able to agree on the punishment (not that it was given the choice of death). The Circuit Court imposed the thirty-three year sentence, not the jury. Besides, the comment is not so outrageous, considering that, had the victim died (a bullet to the brain can be fatal), the death penalty could have been sought. In other words, with no greater criminality on his part, Ratliff could have been exposed to the death penalty. The assignment of error is denied.