Opinion ID: 6104581
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appealing to a duty owed to victims’ families

Text: ¶80 Also during rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor stated, “[W]e know who the defendant is. He’s a cold-blooded, brutal murderer times two. That’s who he is. If you do not find the defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder for Troy and Penny, you failed their families.” (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel objected and moved to strike the statement. The court sustained the objection, struck the statement, and advised the jury, “You will disregard that last comment.” After the prosecutor concluded his rebuttal closing, defense counsel asked to approach and made an oral motion for a mistrial because the prosecutor “[knew] better than to make that comment in front of a jury,” and because failing the victims’ families is an improper basis for a conviction. The court denied the motion on the grounds that the appropriate remedy had already been administered. 23 STATE V. THOMPSON Opinion of the Court ¶81 A prosecutor’s statements are improper if (1) they call attention to matters that jurors should not consider in reaching their verdict, and (2) create a high probability that the jurors are, in fact, influenced by those statements. See State v. Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 367, 391 ¶ 109 (2018). The prosecutor’s statement that the jury should return a guilty verdict on premeditated murder to avoid failing the victims’ families was clearly improper and, frankly, inexcusable for an experienced prosecutor. Whether the victims’ families are served or harmed by a particular verdict is not a consideration in reaching that verdict, and suggesting jurors owed a duty to victims’ families that can only be met by a guilty verdict on premeditated murder constituted an emotional appeal that carried a high likelihood of influencing jurors. See State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 602–03 (1993) (concluding that prosecutor erred by imploring the jury to protect the victim’s rights and reasoning that “[a] jury in a criminal trial is not expected to strike some sort of balance between the victim’s and the defendant’s rights,” and “[t]he statements encouraged the jury to decide the case on emotion and ignore the court’s instructions”); see also Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. at 223 ¶ 117 (“The statement asking the jury to do ‘justice for Edgar’ was arguably inappropriate insofar as it asked the jury to ‘strike some sort of balance between the victim’s and the defendant’s rights.’” (quoting Bible, 175 Ariz. at 603)). The prosecutor here needlessly and impermissibly jeopardized Thompson’s due process rights. The trial court correctly struck the statement and instructed the jury to ignore it. See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 603. ¶82 The State does not contest the trial court’s ruling. Instead, it argues the court correctly denied the motion for mistrial because the comment did not so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the verdict a denial of due process. Thompson does not offer any meaningful counterargument, simply stating that the curative instruction was insufficient. ¶83 We agree with the State. The prosecutor’s comment was isolated and brief, and the court immediately struck it and instructed the jury to disregard it. The court’s actions cured any sting from the comment. See State v. Lynch, 238 Ariz. 84, 100 ¶ 48 (2015), rev’d on other grounds, 578 U.S. 613 (2016) (“The proper response to an improper prosecutorial comment is an objection, motion to strike, and a jury instruction to disregard the stricken comment.”); State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 403 ¶ 69 (2006) (finding an instruction that the jury must disregard statements after a sustained objection curative even where the jury was not told to disregard the statements at the time of the objection and noting that juries are 24 STATE V. THOMPSON Opinion of the Court presumed to follow instructions). Under these circumstances, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the statement could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby depriving Thompson of a fair trial and requiring a reversal. See Murray, 250 Ariz. at 548 ¶ 13. ¶84 Finally, Thompson asserts in conclusory fashion that the statements here were also improper because they misstated the law, shifted the burden of proof, impugned the integrity of the defense, improperly argued inferences and conclusions during closing, vouched for the victims, vouched by implying facts not in evidence, and appealed to the jurors’ fears. Because these arguments are not developed, Thompson has abandoned and waived them. See State v. Vargas, 249 Ariz. 186, 191 ¶ 22 (2020). ¶85 Because we conclude that only one instance of prosecutorial error occurred here, there is no need to address cumulative error.