Opinion ID: 1787107
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Accountability Argument

Text: Finally, Morton argues that the state improperly encouraged the jury to hold Morton accountable for his conduct. The state's language at issue here reads as follows: the state is requesting that you find Roger Morton guilty of both counts of first degree murder. For you to tell Roger Morton that his luck has run out, that he premeditated the rape and murder of Mary Klatt and he murdered her while committing criminal sexual conduct. We have stated that [i]t is proper for a prosecutor to talk about what the victim suffers and to talk about accountability, in order to help persuade the jury not to return a verdict based on sympathy for the defendant. State v. Montjoy, 366 N.W.2d 103, 109 (Minn.1985). But we have cautioned the state not to use accountability arguments as a tactic to divert the jury's attention from its true role of deciding whether the state has met its burden of proof that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Here, the state's comments encouraging the jury to hold Morton accountable were minimal and specific to the case at hand, consisting of a single statement in the state's closing argument that focused on Morton and the crime he was charged with committing. Such a minimal, specific appeal to the jury to hold the defendant accountable for a crime he is charged with having committed is not improper. We conclude that, under the circumstances of the case, the state did not engage in misconduct with respect to its accountability argument and thus we hold there was no error. We have concluded that the state did not improperly inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury and did not make an improper accountability argument. The state did, however, commit misconduct with respect to two were they lying questions; but that misconduct was not plain error. Accordingly, we hold that Morton is not entitled to a new trial. Affirmed.