Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: The Prosecutor's Reference to Giving Weight to Other Mitigating Circumstances

Text: Mr. Banks also argues that the prosecutor committed reversible error when she argued: [W]hen you look at those mitigating circumstances and when you think about whether or not to give them any weight, I want you to each ask yourself if I give this one weight, what else do I have to give weight? If I give weight to the fact that he's HIV [positive], what else do I give weight to those that have cancer and other diseases and tumors and high blood pressure? That's what I want you to ask yourself. Even though he did not object to this argument or include it in his motion for new trial, Mr. Banks now insists that this argument violated ... [his] state and federal constitutional rights to due process, to a fair jury trial and protections against cruel and unusual punishment. We will review this issue using the plain error analysis. The State is permitted to argue that mitigating circumstances [31] are not applicable based upon the evidence or that a circumstance is of little or no weight in terms of actual mitigation value. See, e.g., State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 170 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 85; State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tenn. 1993). The State's argument here is neither inflammatory nor improper, thus we find no error, much less plain error. E.