Opinion ID: 2105313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Improper Personalization Claim

Text: Defendant contends that the State improperly personalized the argument. In closing argument, defense counsel attacked Cox's credibility, stressing her decision not to flee defendant and the crime scene, concluding that she got away with the murder of Lena and Leonard Walters. In rebuttal, the State argued: And the big question is: Why didn't Jessica try to run? And I think all of us sitting here in this comfortable courtroom with all of these officers protecting us, we could probably ask that question. Why didn't she run.. Sure, now we know he was gone for ten minutes. You just saw that man  look at him, that man  you just saw him shoot an old man in the back of the head and he's got a gun and you're out in the middle of nowhere at Port Valero, so why don't you get up ...    Do you make a run for it or are you going to try to appease him, agree to his instructions not to go to the police, take his money to keep, quote-unquote, your mouth shut? ... Defense counsel objected, as improper personalization. The judge overruled the objection. The use of the word you does not necessarily mean improper personalization. State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 323 (Mo. banc 1996). The prosecutor's use of the word you has no special significance when the argument is considered in context. Id. An argument is personalized only when it suggests a personal danger to the jury or their families. State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 528 (Mo. banc 1999). None of the prosecutor's statements suggest personal danger to the jury or their families. No error occurred.