Opinion ID: 1935115
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecutor's Improper Comments at Penalty Phase

Text: During closing arguments at the penalty-phase hearing, the Prosecutor repeatedly referred to the special harm that each aggravating factor addressed as the evil that the factor addressed, and also urged the jury to address that evil. Defendant contends that that phrase had the potential to suggest to the jury that it impose the death penalty to remedy a societal evil, rather than because the evidence proved that it was the appropriate sentence for defendant under the circumstances of the offense. Our cases make clear that a prosecutor's invitations to the jury to decide guilt or sentencing on the basis of societal duty are unacceptable in a death-penalty proceeding. See, e.g., State v. Pennington, 119 N.J. 547, 575-76, 575 A. 2d 816 (1990) (holding improper suggestions to jury during guilt and penalty phases that its oath requires it to convict); State v. Coyle, 119 N.J. 194, 230-31, 574 A. 2d 951 (1990) (There is no room in a capital case for remarks that suggest `the need to protect society from crime.' (quoting Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 321, 524 A. 2d 188)); Rose, supra, 112 N.J. at 520-21, 548 A. 2d 1058 (finding improper admonitions to jury to send a message to community, county, and state that law is in place). Our review of the record reveals that in the context of the entire summation, the challenged statements were not excessively inflammatory. Although we are confident that those statements did not divert the jury from its duty to decide the case based on the evidence before it, if a retrial of the penalty phase occurs, the prosecutor should avoid any suggestion that the jury should determine defendant's sentence on the basis of the jury's societal obligations.