Opinion ID: 1845609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: assignments of error numbers eleven and twelve

Text: By these assignments of error, the defendant contends that the prosecutor's arguments during the penalty phase introduced an arbitrary factor which invalidated the capital sentence returned by the jury. Specifically, the defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the prosecutor to argue the supposed deterrent effect of capital punishment and when it permitted the state to refer to the jury as part of the machinery of the criminal justice of the State of Louisiana. This court carefully reviews the arguments of the state made during the penalty phase of a capital case. A prosecutor may not call upon the jury to base its decision upon a consideration outside the scope of its authority or refer to facts upon which no evidence has been introduced. State v. Willie, 410 So.2d 1019 (La.1982). Nor may the prosecutor convey a message which in some way lessens the jury's awesome responsibility in a capital trial. State v. Willie, supra . See also, State v. Monroe, 397 So.2d 1258 (La.1981). The record in the present case reflects that the prosecuting attorney was not only a competent advocate for the state but also that he was a fair opponent and did not appeal to passion or prejudice in order to obtain the sentence of death. His brief reference to the possible deterrent effect of the death penalty did not induce the jury to skew their focus from the particular defendant and offense in the instant case. See State v. Willie, supra . See also State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983) (where we held that the state's brief reference to the alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty did not inject an arbitrarry factor into the proceedings which might have tainted the verdict). The prosecutor's reference to the jury as part of the machinery of the criminal justice [system] was in fact an accurate depiction. Moreover, this remark could not have lessened in the jurors' minds their awesome responsibility. Compare this remark with those at issue in State v. Willie, supra , (continuous references of the state to the numerous appeals available to the defendant improperly suggested to the jurors that their imposition of the death penalty would not be final). Accordingly, these assignments are without merit.