Opinion ID: 1804086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecutorial Comments During Penalty Phase

Text: Poole contends that he was denied a fundamentally fair penalty phase because the prosecutor made several improper comments during the penalty phase closing arguments. While Poole argues that the prosecutor made several improper comments, defense counsel only objected to the following comment that the prosecutor made near the end of his closing argument: I don't think when you look at it from the perspective that this decision is any more difficult than the other. I'm only thinking that when you go back in that room and make that vote and you head for your car this afternoon, you're not going to find yourself feeling the same way. You're just going to find that you did your job just like you promised to do when you raised your right hand and swore to that oath. Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that the prosecutor's comment suggested that it was the jury's duty to recommend death. The trial court denied the motion. Poole now contends that this comment improperly suggested that the jurors promised and took an oath to recommend the death penalty. On the other hand, the State argues that the prosecutor was asking the jurors to weigh the evidence in aggravation and mitigation. We find that that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense's motion for mistrial because the prosecutor was not suggesting that it was the jurors' sworn duty to recommend death. Throughout the closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the aggravators had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and also attempted to rebut some of the mitigators. At the conclusion of making these arguments, the prosecutor, as an advocate for the State, was attempting to persuade the jury that based on the aggravators and mitigators, they should recommend a death sentence. The prosecutor made the last comment to inform the jury that they should do their jobs as they promised to do when they took the oath, which is to weigh the mitigators and aggravators. This type of comment is not improper. Defense counsel failed to contemporaneously object to the other comments that Poole now contends were improper. As a result, these claims were not properly preserved for appellate review. Additionally, because none of these comments rise to the level of fundamental error, there are no grounds for reversal. See Merck v. State, 975 So.2d 1054, 1064 (Fla.2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 73, 172 L.Ed.2d 66 (2008). As to the first alleged improper comment, Poole argues that the prosecutor misled the jury by misstating the law concerning the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. [4] The first part of the comment was not improper because in discussing the heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravator, the prosecutor was attempting to argue that this aggravator should be given significant weight, and that it alone outweighed the defense's case in mitigation due to the overwhelming evidence that proved the aggravator. However, the second part of the comment was improper because the prosecutor was suggesting that unless the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances, the jury had to vote for a death sentence. We have repeatedly held that a jury is not required to recommend a sentence of death when the aggravators outweigh the mitigators. See Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000); Henyard v. State, 689 So.2d 239 (Fla.1996). While this comment was improper, the comment still does not amount to fundamental error. The prosecutor did not repeat this statement during the rest of his closing arguments. Moreover, at the end of closing arguments, the trial judge read the standard jury instructions, which included an accurate statement of the law. Poole next alleges that the prosecutor belittled evidence in mitigation and commented on matters not in evidence. [5] This comment was not improper because the prosecutor was attempting to rebut mitigating evidence argued by the defense. During the penalty phase, defense counsel admitted into evidence a photograph of Poole when he was a child and a photograph of the church Poole's family attended. Defense counsel used these photographs and asked Poole's family members questions about attending church to demonstrate in mitigation that Poole was a good, loving person who came from a good family. The prosecutor responded during his closing argument that although Poole was a child who went to church at one time, he was not a child anymore, but a thirty-nine-year-old man who committed a crime. Lastly, Poole alleges that the prosecutor misstated the law concerning brain damage as a mitigating circumstance: Youyou are free to reject it if you want and say I don't think brain damage mitigates against the death penalty. When we consider this comment in the context in which it was made, we find that the comment was not improper. The prosecutor acknowledged that it was uncontroverted that Poole had brain damage, but was arguing that it was not enough to recommend a life sentence. In fact, the prosecutor even emphasized that the jury should accept the brain damage mitigator as proven if there was evidence to demonstrate that Poole did, in fact, have brain damage. Because the prosecutor's comments were either not improper or did not constitute fundamental error, we deny relief on this claim.