Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Use of Disparaging Terms

Text: During the sentencing phase closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Mr. Wilson as a psychopath, tr. trans. 2/20/97, at 46-47 and an animal, id. at 29, and suggested that he needed to be put. . . down to sleep. Id. The prosecutor also referred to Mr. Wilson as unadulterated evil and a psychopathic killer. Id at 46. Because defense counsel failed to object, the OCCA reviewed this claim for plain error. The OCCA held that use of the term psychopath was not error, as it was an accurate summary of trial testimony; as to the rest of the arguments, it held that though [t]he State should refrain from unwarranted personal criticism or name calling, the comments did not rise to the level of plain error. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 470. We agree with the OCCA that it was not error to call Mr. Wilson a psychopath. Dr. Reynolds, the defense mental health expert who testified at the sentencing phase, acknowledged that Mr. Wilson exhibited some characteristics of a psychopath, though he did not believe that Mr. Wilson precisely met this diagnosis. The prosecutor's comments were acceptable characterizations of Dr. Reynolds' concessions. As to the prosecutor's use of the terms animal and unadulterated evil to describe Mr. Wilson, we find the pejoratives unprofessional, inappropriate, and unworthy of an officer of the court. Nonetheless, there was ample evidence introduced by the state to support the three aggravators. The state incorporated all first stage evidence into the sentencing phase. Tr. trans. 2/18/97, at 102. It also introduced evidence that Mr. Wilson had prior convictions for transporting a loaded gun and an accessory after the fact to the 1994 murder, in which he also allegedly provided the ammunition for the homicide. Finally, the state introduced, through photographs of defensive wounds and video of the attack, evidence of the conscious physical and mental suffering experienced by Mr. Yost. When this evidence is juxtaposed against the minimal mitigating evidence offered by the defense, we agree with the OCCA that the name calling, however improper, did not rise to the level of plain error.