Opinion ID: 867478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inflammatory Appeals to Emotion

Text: ¶ 146 Moody raises several claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct in appealing to the jurors' emotions in closing argument. Of these, Moody's most substantial claim is his challenge to the prosecutor's appeal to the jurors' fears that Moody would be released if found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGBRI). Additionally, Moody claims that the prosecutor improperly belittled him by referring to him as poor Robert and then impermissibly injected the victims' suffering into closing argument. Because only the first of these was objected to and preserved for appeal, we address each claim separately, reviewing the latter two only for fundamental error. See State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435, 636 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1981). a. The Cut Loose Comment ¶ 147 Before closing arguments, defense counsel requested a jury instruction that would explain the ramifications of an NGBRI verdict. Defense counsel feared that the jurors would be reluctant to find Moody NGBRI if they thought such a verdict would put Moody out on the street. The State argued against giving the instruction and the court denied the defense request. ¶ 148 The next day, knowing that no instruction would be given on the effect of an NGBRI verdict, the prosecutor argued in his rebuttal closing argument that the defendant is asking you to excuse a man who has brutally [and] viciously... murdered two innocent women on the basis of a disorder that is not even settled in the mental health field.... Before you cut somebody loose on that kind of disorder.... The court sustained an objection from defense counsel and instructed the jury to disregard the last comments by the prosecutor. The prosecutor then clarified his remarks, stating [b]efore you find someone not guilty, which is what I'm talking to you about, I would think that you would want some reliable evidence and there isn't any. Moody now argues that this appeal to emotion warrants reversal. ¶ 149 It is misconduct to appeal to the jurors' fears that an NGBRI verdict will result in a defendant's release. State v. Makal, 104 Ariz. 476, 478, 455 P.2d 450, 452 (1969). That is clearly what the prosecutor did by asking the jury not to cut [Moody] loose. The State relies on dicta in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 647, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974), for the proposition that a court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations. We conclude, however, that the prosecutor's remarks were not ambiguous. ¶ 150 The phrase cut somebody loose requires no inferential leap to interpret. It is difficult to imagine any interpretation of the prosecutor's cut loose comment other than that an NGBRI verdict would result in Moody's release. Not only did this comment impermissibly appeal to the jurors' fears, but it was also an incorrect statement of law, because under Arizona law a defendant who is found NGBRI is committed to a secure state mental health facility. A.R.S. § 13-3994 (2001). The egregiousness of the statement was magnified by the prosecutor's knowledge that the jury would not be instructed on the consequences of an NGBRI verdict. ¶ 151 Still, the mere fact that a prosecutor makes improper remarks does not require reversal unless, under the circumstances of the case, [the jury] was probably influenced by those remarks. State v. Puffer, 110 Ariz. 180, 181, 516 P.2d 316, 317 (1973). As in Puffer, Moody's counsel objected to the remark, the objection was sustained, and the jury was immediately instructed to disregard the prosecutor's comments. See id. Moreover, in this case the prosecutor then made comments that sought to remedy his previous misconduct, and before the jury convened for deliberations, the trial court instructed the jury that it was not to consider the possible effects of its verdict. ¶ 152 In State v. Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314, 328, 878 P.2d 1352, 1366 (1994), this court stated that the experienced prosecutor should have known better than to make such remarks, and his actions seem almost calculated to bring prejudicial and irrelevant matters before the jury. His conduct jeopardized the proceedings. We echo those concerns regarding the prosecutor's statement in this case. However, as in Cornell, [w]e do not ... reverse convictions merely to punish a prosecutor's misdeeds [ ]or to deter future misconduct. Id. Rather, reversal is required only when the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of [the prosecutor]. Bible, 175 Ariz. at 600, 858 P.2d at 1203 (quoting State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 400, 783 P.2d 1184, 1192 (1989)). The prosecutor's cut loose comment was irresponsible, inappropriate, and inflammatory. However, because it was an isolated comment, was promptly objected to, and was rendered less harmful by instructions by the court, we cannot conclude that the comment, by itself, denied Moody a fair trial. b. The Poor Robert Comment ¶ 153 Moody alleges that the prosecutor patronized and belittled him in rebuttal closing argument. The prosecutor, in discussing the defense's claim that people did not understand dissociative identity disorder, referred to the defendant as poor Robert Moody for being afflicted with a disorder that no one understands. Moody did not object to this comment. Failure to object to a comment in closing argument waives that argument on appeal, and we therefore review it only for fundamental error. See Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 435, 636 P.2d at 1217. ¶ 154 Attorneys, including prosecutors in criminal cases, are given wide latitude in their closing arguments to the jury. State v. Comer, 165 Ariz. 413, 426, 799 P.2d 333, 346 (1990). Although Moody cites Comer for the proposition that it is misconduct to belittle the defendant in closing argument, Comer does not stand for that proposition. Comer held that a prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors' emotions by referring to the defendant as a monster, filth, and the reincarnation of the devil on earth. Id. We held that prosecutors may comment on the vicious and inhuman nature of the defendant's acts, but may not make arguments which appeal to the passions and fears of the jury. Id. Although we agree that belittling a criminal defendant in closing argument is improper and unnecessary, given the evidence in this case we do not find that the passing comment constituted fundamental error. We therefore conclude that referring to the defendant as poor Robert Moody was not an error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial. State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420, 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977). c. Describing the Victims' Suffering ¶ 155 Moody claims that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by graphically describing the suffering of each decedent and ending his argument by telling the jury that Moody had no sympathy for the victims and asking them to have no sympathy for him. Moody failed to object to these comments, limiting our review to one for fundamental error. See Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 435, 636 P.2d at 1217. ¶ 156 Moody mischaracterizes the prosecutor's statements. After reviewing the record, we see no graphic description of the victims' suffering. The prosecutor's frank description of the murders themselves is permissible. See Comer, 165 Ariz. at 426, 799 P.2d at 346 (Within the latitude of closing argument counsel may comment on the vicious and inhuman nature of the defendant's acts. In so doing, however, counsel may not make arguments which appeal to the passions and fears of the jury.). Moody has failed to show fundamental error on this point. Nor does Moody cite any cases suggesting that it was improper to ask the jury to have no sympathy for him. Indeed, we encourage jurors not to decide cases based on emotion or sympathy. We conclude that such a statement passes muster as an exhortation to the jury to do its duty. Moody therefore fails to demonstrate fundamental error requiring reversal on this issue.