Opinion ID: 1255464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Paraphrasing Evidence

Text: During the penalty phase, the prosecutor stated: We have evidence from the lips of the Defendant that he and his accomplice were on a killing spree. In fact, Bennett did not testify that he was on a killing spree. Rather, a witness, Jeff Chidester, testified that Bennett told him that he was on a killing spree. Bennett contends that the prosecutor did not stay within the strict confines of the law and the facts, because Bennett did not personally testify that he was on a killing spree. The State's response insists that Bennett's argument is specious, as the evidence that Bennett and Beeson were on a killing spree actually came from Bennett's mouth, as described by witness Jeff Chidester. The test with respect to inappropriate comments by the prosecution is whether the comments `so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)). Based upon that standard, we must reject Bennett's contention. Arguably, the prosecution misstated the evidence in a technical sense; however, the distinction is subtle and relatively minor in light of the overwhelming evidence that Bennett was, in fact, on a killing spree. Consider, for example, the content of the poetry discussed in the next section. Moreover, Bennett's trial counsel successfully countered the prosecution's argument by telling the jury that the testimony actually came from Jeff Chidester. In light of defense counsel's statement and the strength of the prosecution's case as a whole in terms of the propriety of the death penalty, we conclude that this argument supplies Bennett with no basis for a new penalty hearing.