Opinion ID: 1172220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: When the prosecutor told the jury to send a message

Text: During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated, Your verdicts here today do a lot of things, one of which is to send a message  a message to society and it's incumbent upon you to think about what that message is going to be. Let me ask you this: Is your message going to be that if you deal drugs, if you carry guns, if you belong to gangs, if you conspire to kill and indeed you do go out and kill that we're going to give you life with the possibility of parole and one day let you perhaps be walking the streets a free person at the same time the Lusch[es] are visiting their son's grave? Is that the message that you want to send?. . . . Or might you prefer to send a message to the gang-bangers and the dope dealers and the gun carriers and the killers to be that you're not going to tolerate this type of action in our society. (Emphasis added.) Lisle's attorney made an objection, the judge sustained it, and admonished the jury to disregard those statements. Lisle contends, nonetheless, on appeal that the statements were patently improper. This court held, [T]he relevant inquiry is whether the comments were so unfair that they deprived the defendant of due process. Witter v. State, 112 Nev. 908, 923, 921 P.2d 886, 897 (1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1708, 137 L.Ed.2d 832 (1997). In Witter, during the penalty phase closing argument, the prosecutor commented, It is important to send a message to people in the community and to would[-]be murderers that there are lines that you do not cross in Nevada; that there is some conduct that simply will not be tolerated and will be met with a very, very severe penalty. . . . . What message does this punishment send today? Will we tell would[-]be murderers, will we tell this community, that you can kill a man, thrust a knife into his skull 16 times, one time through his skull, 16 times into his body, that you can perpetrate unspeakable, despicable deeds upon his wife in her own car and that you, the husband, can drive upon that crime scene and witness your wife bleeding to death, struggling for your life, what message does it send to say the man that perpetrates those crimes can live his life in prison, can write his family, see his family, speak to his family? Id. at 924-25, 921 P.2d at 897 (emphasis added). This court held that in a penalty hearing the comments properly focus on what would be an appropriate punishment under the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as what would be necessary to deter others from committing such a brutal act. These are entirely proper areas for comment. Id. at 926, 921 P.2d at 898. As the comments in Witter are substantially similar to the ones in the present case, we conclude that Lisle's argument is without merit.