Opinion ID: 1770491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Family Wishes

Text: Mr. Isom next maintains that the jury was tainted when the prosecutor was allowed to imply during voir dire what sentence the victims' families wanted. The precise statement by the prosecutor was: I need to know now if there's anybody who'd have any reservations about [signing a death penalty verdict and individually stating aloud if that is your verdict], because I, the State and the people involved with the State in this case, feel very strongly that that is the appropriate sentence in this case. Mr. Isom's counsel promptly objected and stated that what the victim wanted was inadmissible. The circuit judge ruled that what the prosecutor said was argument and we don't need to get into that, stating a personal belief. The judge then permitted questions to the jury about whether they could personally vote for the death penalty. Mr. Isom presents no authority in support of this issue and merely concludes that the jury was tainted. When a party does not cite authority or provide convincing argument, this court will not consider the merits of the arguments. See, e.g., McClina v. State, 354 Ark. 384, 123 S.W.3d 883 (2003); Ware v. State, 348 Ark. 181, 75 S.W.3d 165 (2002). Neither was done in this case, and this court will not do the research for Mr. Isom. There was no abuse of discretion by the circuit judge regarding this issue.