Opinion ID: 1386655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Defendant's Closing Argument

Text: Defendant argues the trial court erred by sustaining prosecution objections during defendant's closing arguments in the penalty proceeding, thereby preventing defendant from fully explaining to the jury the decision it was to make concerning HAC. Defense counsel's argument on HAC was as follows: Now let's consider the aggravating circumstance tendered by the State in this particular case, which is that this murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. One of the things that the Judge's instruction will tell you  first degree murder is heinous, atrocious and usually cruel. I mean, first degree murder is that. That is what we're dealing with with first degree murder. So when the District Attorney talked to you about, you know, things that would be consistent with heinousness and with atrocity and with cruelty, that is always present when you have a first degree murder. The Judge will instruct you what the statute says and what you must determine. And this, members of the jury  this is a value judgment that you make based upon the facts that you determine to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. And you must have this value judgment beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, you must eliminate any possibility that this murder was  Yes, heinous, atrocious and cruel in the ordinary sense of first degree murder. Which all have. But that this was not the exceptional, the uniquely heinous, atrocious and cruel first degree murder. Now let's think about the word especially. What does it mean as we all use it now? The choir at church sang beautifully, but Jane's voice was especially beautiful. Now that is the way especially is used here, except that it's used not for especially beautiful, but for especially, uniquely ugly. And I will concede to you  I will concede to you that this murder, as it was committed, was heinous, atrocious and cruel. But I would contend to you that the State has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that this murder was especially, uniquely heinous, atrocious or cruel. . . . . Members of the jury, let us, as we go through the mitigating circumstances, please understand, and please understand clearly, that the totality of Jimmy McNeill's life prior to April 10th of 2000  the good things that he did are something that you must consider in determining whether this murder was the worst of the worst, and whether this defendant was the worst of the worst. Now let's consider  I mean, what would be some examples of murders that would be worse? [Prosecuting Attorney]: Objection. THE COURT: I'll sustain that. [Defense Counsel]: The question is whether this murder, in the universe of murders, is the worst. And whether this defendant, in the universe of defendants convicted of first degree murder, is the worst. I contend to you, clearly, there are worse murders than this. And I contend to you, absolutely, there are a whole lot worse defendants guilty of first degree murder than this. . . . . It was a tragic  it was a tragic killing. But it was a tragic killing by an individual who, if you look at it honestly, you could not understand why he did it. This is no excuse for it. But you can see, okay, this person  what he did is not the worst first degree murder. And it has not been committed by the worst defendant. [Prosecuting Attorney]: Objection. Your Honor, it's not a comparison between cases. THE COURT: Sustained. Defendant contends his trial counsel was merely comparing his case to other cases in the same way the prosecutor did in her closing argument. We disagree. Defendant claims, in essence, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and he should have been allowed to make comparisons of his case to previous cases in which HAC was not found, or found and reversed upon appeal, because the prosecution was able to make such a comparison. This assertion mischaracterizes the prosecution's argument. In this case, the prosecution merely set out the law and applied the facts of the present case to the law. For the reasons set out above, this argument is proper. However, defendant began to make comparisons between cases and the facts of each case, something this Court has not allowed. See State v. Anthony, 354 N.C. at 429-30, 555 S.E.2d at 593-94 (defendant not allowed to read facts of prior case to jury). Furthermore, the circumstances of other murders, either actual or imagined, defense counsel believes are more heinous, atrocious, or cruel were not present in the record at the time of closing arguments, and, therefore, counsel may not introduce such evidence in closing. During a closing argument to the jury an attorney may not . . . make arguments on the basis of matters outside the record except for matters concerning which the court may take judicial notice. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1230(a). Since there was no request for the trial court to take judicial notice of the other murders referenced, defense counsel improperly argued matters outside the record. This assignment of error is therefore overruled.