Opinion ID: 1721719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Injection of Extraneous Issues

Text: It is improper for the prosecutor to engage in argument which would divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused at trial, or the defendant's background, character and crime at the sentencing hearing, under controlling law, or by making predictions of the consequences of the jury's verdict or recommendation. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice-The Prosecution Function, Standard 5.8(d). Typical examples falling within this category of improper arguments are (i) predictions as to the consequence of an acquittal or a failure to recommend the death penalty upon lawlessness or murders in the community, and (ii) references to the likelihood of other authorities, such as the governor or the appellate courts, correcting an erroneous conviction or sentence, so as to lead the jury to shirk responsibility for its decision. See ABA Standards 5.8, Commentary (d). The prosecutor in the present case was guilty of the first, and very nearly of the second, type of improper argument. In his rebuttal closing argument in the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecutor told the jury: [T]hat's why I'm asking you for the death penalty in this case, is people that are out there, they are going to continue to commit these armed robberies, people that are going to commit rapes, people that are going to kill people because they're witnesses against them. That's got to stop. Ladies and gentlemen, in Louisiana armed robbery carries with it a penalty from five years to ninety-nine years. And somebody that's got a prior felony conviction, that enhances the sentence. The least they can get is thirty-three years to one hundred ninety-eight years. What's to keep somebody who's in that situation from taking the life of somebody when they know that if they get caught and that person identifies them that the least they can get is thirty-three years which is more than likely a life sentence for most people? What's to keep them from murdering the person that's a witness against them? What's to keep somebody who makes a decision that they want to rape somebody at gunpoint or knifepoint commit an aggravated rape? And that's life imprisonment, what in the world is to keep them from killing that poor woman if she's the only witness against him? It's very important for you to consider, because that's a choice that he made. And maybe, ladies and gentlemen, just maybe, if one person picks up the paper tomorrow and sees that you came back and made a recommendation that he be put to death, one person that was thinking about going out and committing an armed robbery or a rape, read that this person was put to death because he killed somebody that was a witness against him, if just one person says Well, I'm not going to kill him, then it's worth it. And I'll submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that that's what needs to be done. You need to recommend. You need to send the message. We can't tolerate murder any longer. We have repeatedly held that it is highly improper and prejudicial for a prosecutor to turn his argument to the jury into a plebiscite on crime or to refer to the consequences to society of the jury's verdict. State v. Kyles, supra; State v. Bates, 495 So.2d 1262 (La.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1042, 107 S.Ct. 1986, 95 L.Ed.2d 826 (1987); State v. Sugar, 408 So.2d 1329 (La.1982); State v. Barrow, 410 So.2d 1070 (La.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 852, 103 S.Ct. 115, 74 L.Ed.2d 101 (1982); State v. Messer, 408 So.2d 1354 (La.1982); State v. Hayes, 364 So.2d 923 (La.1978). Predictions as to the consequence of an acquittal on lawlessness in the community go beyond the scope of the issues in the trial. We conclude that the prosecutor's argument urging the jury to sentence the defendant to death so that future potential murderers would be deterred went beyond the scope of permissible argument in a capital case. In his rebuttal closing argument in the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecutor told the jury: You're not killing him. You twelve people are not going to kill him. You are not responsible, if you so desire, for sending him to the electric chair. I'm not responsible. Judge McKay and the courtroom people here aren't responsible. His attorney is not responsible. Donald Harris is not responsible. Most definitely Kenny Jackson is not responsible. The only person in this courtroom today, all day and this evening, that's responsible for what's happened is that man right there, Norvell Smith, not you all. The United States Supreme Court, this court, and others have held that arguments which diminish the jury's sense of responsibility for the verdict and sentencing recommendation introduce an arbitrary factor into the sentencing phase which may result in reversible error. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985); State v. Jones, 474 So.2d 919 (La.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178, 106 S.Ct. 2906, 90 L.Ed.2d 992 (1986); State v. Willie, 410 So.2d 1019 (La.1982), later appeal, 436 So.2d 553 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1327, 79 L.Ed.2d 723 (1984); State v. Berry, 391 So.2d 406 (La. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 2347, 68 L.Ed.2d 863 (1981); and authorities cited therein. In this instance, the prosecutor's argument, though suggesting that the jury should not feel responsible for sending the defendant to the electric chair, did not suggest that the higher court or the governor would correct a mistake in sentencing. Thus, although the prosecutor's remarks ventured dangerously close to an attempt to lead the jury to shirk its responsibility for the sentencing recommendation, we cannot say that this statement, in itself, was sufficient to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Since we look at the argument of the prosecutor as a whole, however, and not at isolated statements, this remark of the prosecutor must be considered along with the others. See United States v. Herberman, 583 F.2d 222, 231 (5th Cir.1978); State v. Copeland, 530 So.2d 526, 544-45 (La.1988).