Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Greed and Evil

Text: The prosecutor for the State who made opening statement in this case began, You can't hide from greed and evil. James Day learned that lesson on April 21st, 1997.... She continued: James Day learned you can't hide from greed and evil, and He walked into the path of greed and evil. Throughout opening statement, the prosecutor referred collectively to Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond as greed and evil. This theme was repeated during closing argument, in which both prosecutors made references that James Day couldn't hide from greed and evil, there was no hiding from or escaping the circle of greed and evil, and greed and evil really didn't care that day whether he lived or died. The prosecutors referred to the Defendants as greed and evil a total of twenty-one times during the opening statement and closing arguments of the guilt phase of the trial. Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond, neither of whom entered a contemporaneous objection to these statements, ask this Court to find plain error in the State's conduct. See Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(b). It is improper for the prosecutor to use epithets to characterize a defendant. The prosecutors' repeated references to Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond as greed and evil was improper. See, e.g., Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 737 (evil one); State v. Bates, 804 S.W.2d 868, 881 (Tenn.1991) (rabid dog); State v. Ladonte Montez Smith, No. M1997-00087-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1210813, at  (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, Dec. 17, 1999) (guilty dog); State v. Joel Guilds, No. 01C01-9804-CC-00182, 1999 WL 333368, at  5 (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, May 27, 1999) (this clown). When a prosecutor engages in improper argument, we must also consider the curative measures taken by the court and/or the prosecution; the prosecutor's intent in making the improper remarks; the cumulative effect of the erroneous statements and any other errors in the record; and the relative strength or weakness of the case. See Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 809; State v. Buck, 670 S.W.2d 600, 609 (Tenn.1984). Here, we find the prosecutors' comments unseemly but harmless in the context of the entire argument. No curative instruction was provided primarily because neither Defendant Thomas nor Defendant Bond objected to the characterization. Moreover, the State's case was strong and the effect of the error was insignificant. In short, the State's improper argument did not undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial, and we therefore conclude that this issue gains the Defendants no relief.