Opinion ID: 1771702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reference to Future Dangerousness

Text: Defendant complains about a portion of the prosecutor's closing argument in the penalty phase referring to defendant's future dangerousness. In the complained-of portion of the argument, the prosecutor stated: As long as [defendant] lives, others are in jeopardy and in danger and you saw the records.... [T]his man, as long as he lives and breathes, is a danger at the very least to other inmates and whatever jail he's housed in, he's a danger to whatever people in law enforcement he will be connected with. He has already shown this as he waits for a trial on this charge, that he has not regard for anyone else, he has no regard for authority, he has no problem with brutalizing and killing police officers or battering them. This court has stated that the prosecutor's remarks about the societal costs of a life sentence, misspent tax dollars, future escapes, more killings by defendant, were improper. State v. Busby, 464 So.2d 262, 267, (La.1985), sentence vacated on other grounds, 538 So.2d 164 (La.1988). Without deciding whether a single statement in closing argument that the defendant, if released, may kill again would require reversal of the sentence in other cases, we note in this case that defendant's mitigation expert admitted a number of incidents in which disciplinary action against defendant had been taken since his incarceration. Therefore, the prosecutor had a factual basis for the remarks in this case, and this portion of the closing argument did not inject an arbitrary factor into the proceedings.