Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: denigration of mitigating evidence

Text: The appellant also contends that the prosecutor misled and inflamed the jury by denigrating the appellant's mitigating evidence, characterizing the evidence as an excuse which should be disregarded. First, our supreme court found nothing wrong with counsel's argument in State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 922 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 99, 133 L.Ed.2d 53 (1995), a case in which the prosecutor similarly referred to the defendant's mitigating evidence as an excuse. See also State v. Keen, 926 S.W.2d 727 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing granted, (Tenn. May 16, 1995). Second, the record reveals that, although the State generally downplayed the mitigating evidence presented by the appellant, the prosecutor, during rebuttal, conceded that two mitigating factors, the appellant's youth and his lack of a significant criminal history, had been proven. During the course of argument, the prosecutor also explained that the appellant could present proof on anything [he] want[s] to and call it a mitigator. Whether it's a mitigator or not is up to you. We conclude that the challenged comments do not rise to the level of reversible error.