Opinion ID: 1903773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court improperly instructed the jury to disregard the consequences of their verdict.

Text: ¶ 27. McDowell concedes that the amount of time to which a defendant may be sentenced is not an appropriate topic for closing arguments. Abney v. State, 123 Miss. 546, 86 So. 341 (1920)([T]he jury have no concern, in arriving at their verdict, with the quantum of punishment that may be inflicted in response thereto); see also Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976, 983 (Miss.1988)(We have consistently disapproved of arguments which refer to the potential sentence in a given case.) Rather, he argues that by denying him the right to urge the jury to consider the consequences of a conviction for him, the trial court was effectively causing the jury to act without conscience as if it were a Nuhrenberg [sic] jury because if the jury makes a mistake we can fix it on appeal. The State argues that McDowell was actually attempting to convey the message that while the jurors could go home after the trial, McDowell would go to prison for life if the jury found him guilty. ¶ 28. This issue turns on the following exchanges during closing arguments: [MR. BERRY:] You gave us your oath that you'd try this case fairly and squarely on the evidence. We believed you. This is a serious case, serious consequences for my client. MR. SCHMIDT: Objection, Judge. THE COURT: Don't argue consequences. MR. BERRY: You know, when I conclude, I'll go over to that table and sit down, wait for your conclusion. Then I'll go back to my office and get on to something else. MR. SCHMIDT: Objection to that, Judge. THE COURT: Overruled. I'll let him say what he's going to say, and then I'lldon't talk about consequences, though. MR. BERRY: You jurors will go back to your homes. But what you do today will affect Gabriel McDowell the rest of his life. MR. SCHMIDT: That's the same objection, Judge. THE COURT: Sustained. The jury will disregard the consequences of whatever the verdict is, regardless of the consequences. ¶ 29. We agree with the State's assessment of McDowell's closing argument. Statements such as You jurors will go back to your homes. But what you do today will affect Gabriel McDowell the rest of his life cannot be viewed as anything but an enticement for the jury to consider the severity of the penalty McDowell faced if convicted. Such an argument is improper, and the trial court was correct when it instructed the jurors to disregard the consequences of their verdict. This issue is without merit.