Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: The Prosecutor's Reference to Mitigating Circumstances as Special Treatment

Text: Mr. Banks contends that his constitutional rights were also violated by the prosecutor's argument that application of the mitigating factors would give the defendant special treatment. The prosecutor stated the following: It's sad but with your everyday common lifetime experiences, you know that it is common for some kids to pick on others, especially in sibling situations. Does it set him apart from any other defendant who commits murder? Does it make him special? Does it make him different? Because a mitigating circumstance, ladies and gentlemen, is one that sets it apart, something that makes this offense something that deserves this defendantthis defendant deserved to be treated differently than everybody else, special consideration. Mr. Banks objected to this statement on the ground that the prosecutor was suggesting that consideration of mitigating factors constituted special treatment. The trial court responded as follows: [I]t's not so much that he's going to be given special treatment. He's going to be treated like anybody else under the law and the jury is entitled to consider these things. I understand your objection. I'll simply state that you shouldsince you do have your argument yet to come, that you should respond to it in your argument. That would be a better course. The prosecutor then continued with her argument by stating: So whether you've been bullied or picked on, you didn't hear any proof of torture. You didn't hear any proof that he had to go a hospital. You didn't hear any proof that it was anything outside the norm of anybody else's childhood growing up experiences. So do you set that apart? Is that anything different from what anybody else has had to endure? Is it anything different than what any of you have had to endure? Does it justify or excuse or should it be given less culpability for execution because you had that lifetime childhood experience? The prosecutor's argument was not that consideration of the mitigating circumstances would afford Mr. Banks special treatment. Rather, the prosecutor was describing mitigating circumstances as those that render a particular offender less culpable than the average person. Regardless of how these arguments are characterized, they fall safely within the domain of legitimate argument that the jury should afford little or no weight to a particular mitigating circumstance asserted by Mr. Banks, specifically that Mr. Banks was picked on and beaten by his brothers. See, e.g., State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d at 170; State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 85; State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 258. F.