Opinion ID: 1256193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Improper Considerations

Text: {109} Defendant contends that it was misconduct for the prosecutor to argue that the jury should return its verdict based on improper considerations such as community outrage, society's right to grieve, the fact that this is the stuff that we, as parents, fear for our children, and the need for a stern message from you that this conduct won't be tolerated. The prosecutor made these remarks during his rebuttal of Defendant's closing argument in the penalty phase of the trial. Defendant's closing argument had a religious theme, with remarks about leaving Defendant's life in God's hands because a long time ago, a man died on a cross [and] His final words about His killers were words of forgiveness. After a brief bench conference that followed the prosecutor's rebuttal, the trial court gave the jurors the following limiting instruction: Any suggestion that you as a jury have some obligation to express a particular opinion on a case through your verdict, or to carry any kind of message through your verdict, is totally inappropriate. This case must be decided upon the facts that you have before you in this court, and not on any ... play upon your desire to please a public or to carry out any particular aim of... society. Deal with this case on its facts in the manner in which I've instructed you, putting aside your bias and prejudices, and deciding the case solely upon what you've heard. Shortly after this instruction was given, the jury retired to deliberate. {110} We agree with the trial court that the closing arguments quoted above were improper inasmuch as they attempted to persuade the jury to reach a verdict based on biases or prejudices to which the jurors may have been susceptible because of their experiences as parents or members of a particular community or religion. See UJI 14-101. We admonish trial counsel for both sides to confine their remarks to arguments based on the evidence presented in the cases before them. We conclude, however, that the trial court's curative instruction was sufficient to offset any prejudicial effect due to the [lawyers'] erroneous statement[s]. State v. Sellers, 117 N.M. 644, 650, 875 P.2d 400, 406 (Ct.App.1994). Reviewing all of the comments made in closing argument in the context in which they occurred so that the [C]ourt may gain full understanding of the comments and their potential effect on the jury, State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-045, ¶ 42, 124 N.M. 55, 946 P.2d 1066, we determine that the prosecutor's remarks did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial, see Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 46-47, 126 N.M. 132, 967 P.2d 807.