Opinion ID: 1344407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Charge on Deterrence

Text: In discussing jury charges during the penalty phase, appellant requested a charge on general deterrence. However, appellant agreed to forego such a charge after the solicitor agreed not to argue deterrence during closing argument. Despite this agreement, the solicitor argued, The man will continue to kill, ladies and gentlemen. There's no question. I don't think I have seen anything from that man that says, true, heart and soul remorse of anything. Appellant did not object to this argument, but after the trial judge charged the jury, appellant renewed his request for a charge on deterrence. The judge declined. Appellant contends this was error. We disagree. We discern neither prejudice nor error in the refusal to give a charge on deterrence. First, there was no prejudice because the requested charge went to the issue of general deterrence while the solicitor's argument went to specific deterrence. Second, this Court has indicated that a charge on general deterrence is appropriate only when the solicitor argues it. See e.g., State v. Longworth, supra . She did not do so here, and thus no charge was required.