Opinion ID: 1057999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Closing ArgumentConsideration of Proof

Text: Regarding evidence of whether the Defendant himself or Ralph Thompson actually fired the fatal shot, the prosecutor told the jury to listen closely to the charge from the judge and [i]f he tells you that it is important as to who pulled the trigger, then you consider it. The Defendant contends that the prosecutor's argument was egregiously improper in that it suggested to the jury that they should disregard any proof which the trial court did not expressly tell them it was important for them to consider including factual evidence that the Defendant himself may have committed the murder. The ultimate gist of the Defendant's argument is that the State could not prove the murder was committed for remuneration or promise of remuneration if the Defendant himself shot and killed his wife. The record reflects that the challenged remarks were made as the prosecutor began to discuss its burden of proving an aggravating circumstance. The prosecutor stated: The State, as you all well know, has to prove an aggravating circumstance, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I submit to you the State has to go no further than the words that came from this Defendant's mouth on December 5th, when he finally came across to telling the truth about what happened to the officers, and you heard it because the aggravating circumstance is, that you employ another to commit a crime for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, there's absolutely no question. Ralph asked me if he killed Lisa would I give him my boat, motor and truck and I told him I would. The same thing he'd offered Glen Brewer. I don't need to go any further than that, folks. Now, apparently defense believes that maybe if they can show that their client pulled the trigger, that that doesn't apply. I submit to you, listen closely to the charge from the judge. If he tells you that it is important as to who pulled the trigger, then you consider it. If he doesn't, I submit to you... Following the Defendant's objection being overruled, the prosecutor continued: Listen closely to the Court's charge. If he tells you to consider it I submit to you, I know you will, there'll be no question about it. If he doesn't, I submit to you, you don't. That's not the end of it. The fact that the State has proved the aggravating circumstance, you're to go further and look at the mitigating circumstances. Closing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted. See State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn.2001) (citing Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 809). The trial court has wide discretion in controlling the course of arguments and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Id. In the present case, the trial court overruled the objection to the prosecutor's argument, noting that the court had just instructed the jury that it would not be bound by any principles of law mentioned in counsel's argument, but was bound to apply the law only as instructed by the court. The general principle in criminal cases is that there is a duty upon the Trial Judge to give the jury a complete charge on the law applicable to the facts of the case. The Defendant has a right to have every issue of fact raised by the evidence and material to his defense submitted to the jury upon proper instructions by the Judge. Poe v. State, 212 Tenn. 413, 370 S.W.2d 488, 489 (1963) (citing Crawford v. State, 44 Tenn. 190, 194-195 (Tenn.1867); Green v. State, 154 Tenn. 26, 285 S.W. 554 (1926); Myers v. State, 185 Tenn. 264, 206 S.W.2d 30 (1947); Harbison v. Briggs Paint Co., 209 Tenn. 534, 354 S.W.2d 464 (1962)). In our view, the prosecutor's remarks served only to emphasize the trial court's charge to the jury and otherwise fell within the wide range of permissible argument. This issue is without merit.