Opinion ID: 2454387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Killing Storey is Justified

Text: The prosecutor argued: I want you to think about that guy right there on the front row, Jeff Frey. What if he had happened onto this brutal thing and seen his very close sister in the process of murdered? Would he have been justified in taking the Defendant's life? Yes. Without question. Without question. This argument is improper for several reasons. First, it argues facts outside the record; Jeff Frey did not, in fact, see the murder. Thus, it is error for the same reason as the most brutal murder in the county's history argument. See State v. Williams, 646 S.W.2d at 109-10; State v. Holzwarth, 520 S.W.2d at 21; State v. Mayfield, 506 S.W.2d at 365 (Mo.1974); State v. Swing, 391 S.W.2d at 265 (Mo.1965); State v. Baber, 297 S.W.2d at 441 (Mo.1956). Second, the vivid image of a brother seeing his sister brutally murdered appears calculated only to inflame the jury; such arguments are errors. See State v. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d 503, 513 (Mo. banc 1992). Third, the argument equates the jury's sentencing function with self-defense, specifically referring to this crime. Such arguments are impermissible. Cf. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d at 465 (general reference to self-defense not mentioning this crime is permissible). Finally, the hypothetical argument was irrelevant and induced the jury to apply emotion, not reason, to the death penalty sentencing decision. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 358, 97 S.Ct. at 1204-05.