Opinion ID: 1172674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Closing Argument (Penalty Phase)

Text: Appellant claims the prosecuting attorney made two statements during closing argument in the penalty phase of the trial which constituted misconduct. The first was near the beginning of the state's closing argument when the prosecuting attorney stated: The legislature enacted the death penalty law so that it would be used in the most serious murder cases. So that in cases where the crime calls out for a death sentence, the jury, in its discretion and its common sense and its good judgment, would impose such a sentence. I suggest to you that this crime screams out for the death sentence. (emphasis added). Near the conclusion of the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument, the prosecuting attorney stated: I talk about reasons why the death penalty is appropriate. And one of the reasons it is appropriate, is just exactly the acts that he [Appellant] carried out, that is one of the reasons it's appropriate. If the death penalty is not appropriate in this case, I'd ask you to try to think of a case that it would be appropriate in, considering his acts, considering his evil. (emphasis added). Because the defense did not object to either statement, this court will consider any error waived unless either remark was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it caused an enduring and resulting prejudice that could not have been neutralized by a curative instruction to the jury. [82] Reversal is required only if there is a substantial likelihood either statement affected the jury's verdict. [83] Both statements were supported by the evidence and thus were not improper. Appellant was convicted of committing a brutal murder with several aggravating factors. There was overwhelming evidence to support his conviction. Under these circumstances, the prosecuting attorney had wide latitude to make the argument that the evidence strongly supported imposition of the death penalty. [84] While the words used to make that argument (such as screams out and evil) may be somewhat dramatic, they do not constitute misconduct warranting reversal in this case.