Opinion ID: 1643910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Prosecutorial Argument During the Penalty Phase

Text: Wheeler next contends that the prosecutor repeatedly engaged in improper and prejudicial remarks to the jury during the penalty phase. Wheeler objected to only one of the alleged improper comments, and relies upon his general pretrial motions in limine for preservation of his claims of error for the remaining comments. [6] The general pretrial motion in limine does not constitute a contemporaneous objection to the prosecutor's arguments, and the record demonstrates that even the one objected-to comment was not adequately preserved. As to the comment for which defense counsel did object, the trial court did not sustain or overrule the objection, but asked the prosecutor to clarify his argument. The prosecutor began by arguing: [Prosecutor] And if you just think back to yesterday you can recognize why that's so. It's obvious. The choices that Jason Wheeler made had a devastating impact on not just the family of Deputy Koester, but his family as well. If you tried to sit and count the number of people that have been affected by what was done, it numbers in the dozens just with Wayne Koester's nieces and nephews. There's six kids and two families each and four of his own. Now, that Defense counsel objected and said: [T]his to me is like an aggravator based on the number of people that are more [affected]. The prosecutor responded: It is not in any way intended to be argued as an aggravator. It is simply for them to understand that everybody has been affected by this. And my further comment will be, that's not what they can make their decision on. The court then said, Make that clear and limit it as best you can. The prosecutor then clarified his argument by telling the jury: But you see, the rules tell you that that's not what you base your decision on. That's the whole purpose of the process is for you to try to look objectively at the choices that were made and what is the just consequence of those choices. No further objection was made after this clarification, and no motion for mistrial was made. Because this objection was not preserved, and no other specific objections were made to any of the other arguments Wheeler cites on appeal, his claims are procedurally barred. Thus, any claim of error must be shown to be fundamental for the appellant to obtain relief. See Derrick, 983 So.2d at 463 (quoting Delva, 575 So.2d at 644-45). With one exception that we discuss below, we conclude that the arguments of the prosecutor constituted proper comment on the evidence and the law. One unobjected-to argument, however, did exceed the proper scope of closing argument when the prosecutor, quoting writer Joseph Epstein, argued: But within all this realm of choicelessness, we do choose how we will live. Either courageously or cowardly, or honorably or dishonorably, with purpose or a drift, we decide what's important and trivial in life. We decide what makes us significant is either what we do or what we refuse to do. But no matter how indifferent the entire universe may be to these choices, these choices and decisions are ours to make. We decide. We choose. And as we decide and as we choose, our destinies are formed. That's what I want you to look at as we walk through this case and these facts and these aggravating and mitigating circumstances. No specific objection was made to this argument, although just before penalty phase closing arguments, Wheeler had advised the trial judge that the prosecutor might attempt to argue that the jury could weigh victim impact evidence against the mitigators. Significantly, the prosecutor actually responded at that time that he did not intend to use victim impact evidence as an aggravator, but he intended to use the victim impact as a contrast to the defendant's mitigation of his life and his character. The trial court was concerned whether such an argument would be proper and warned the prosecutor to couch his discussion of the victim impact evidence very circumspectly to avoid having it diminish defendant's mitigation. Under the limited scope of the victim impact statute in Florida, victim impact evidence is not to be used by the jury to compare, contrast or weigh the relative worth of the life of the victim against that of the defendant in deciding whether to recommend the death penalty. To the extent that the prosecutor's argument urged the jury to compare the worth of the life of the victim against that of Jason Wheeler, the argument is erroneous. However, we conclude that reversal is not mandated because no contemporaneous objection was made, the error has not been shown to have deprived Wheeler of a fair penalty phase, and the error has not been shown to be so inflammatory that the jury's advisory verdict could not have been obtained without it. See Derrick, 983 So.2d at 463. Nevertheless, we caution the State and its prosecutors to remain mindful of the limited purpose for which victim impact evidence may be introduced and to stay strictly within those parameters.