Opinion ID: 2454387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Personalization to the Jury

Text: The prosecutor argued: Think for just this moment. Try to put yourselves in Jill Frey's place. Can you imagine? And, thenand then, to have your head yanked back by its hair and to feel the blade of that knife slicing through your flesh, severing your vocal cords, wanting to scream out in terror, but not being able to. Trying to breathe, but not being able to for the blood pouring down into your esophagus. The prosecutor may not personalize argument to the jury. State v. Raspberry, 452 S.W.2d 169, 172 (Mo.1970). Personalization may taint the jury's judgment with suggestions of personal danger to them or their families. Id. Asking the jury to put themselves in Jill Frey's place, then graphically detailing the crime as if the jurors were the victims, could only arouse fear in the jury. This argument was grossly improper. The prejudice of this argument is undeniable. Inflammatory arguments that inflame and arouse fear in the jury are especially prejudicial when the death penalty is at issue. State v. Tiedt, 206 S.W.2d 524, 529 (Mo. banc 1947). It is of vital importance to the defendant and to the community that any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be based on reason rather than caprice or emotion. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1205, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977).