Opinion ID: 1119440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Reference to matters outside the record.

Text: The following exchange took place during the prosecution's closing argument during the penalty phase: MR. OWENS: And it's very subtle, and you may not have noticed it, but in any penalty hearing what the defense and every witness that the defense calls wants you to do is forget about MR. KOHN: I object, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. OWENS: What the defense has done in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is to try to make you forget about Kathryn Cox and James Cox. The whole case gets turned upside down and they twist things around until they can portray the victhe defendant, William Witter, as if he is the victim. Witter argues that in stating in any penalty hearing what the defense and every witness that the defense calls wants you [the jury] to do is to forget about [the victims], the prosecution improperly referred to matters outside the record on appeal. See State v. Kassabian, 69 Nev. 146, 243 P.2d 264 (1952). Witter also argues that these statements improperly disparage a legitimate defense tactic. See Williams v. State, 103 Nev. 106, 734 P.2d 700 (1987); Pickworth v. State, 95 Nev. 547, 598 P.2d 626 (1979). We conclude that both of Witter's arguments lack merit. After the objection, the prosecutor modified his statement to conform to the facts of this case. As such, the statement did not refer to matters outside of the record. Moreover, the statement did not disparage a legitimate defense tactic. Rather, the statement merely attempted to keep the jury's focus on the actual victims of Witter's crime. We therefore conclude that the prosecutor's statements were proper.