Opinion ID: 2541567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Right to mercy

Text: Tisius claims the State's commentary that he did not have a right to ask for mercy misstated the law. Closing arguments must be examined in the context of the entire record. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d at 543. Tisius challenges the following portion of the State's argument: Ladies and gentlemen, you canand I told you during voir dire a couple of days ago, you can extend mercy for whatever reason to this man. You can do that. But the one thing he does not have the right to do is to ask for it. He forfeited that right on June 22nd when he committed these two murders. Prosecutors may discuss the concept of mercy in their closing arguments because mercy is a valid sentencing consideration, and in that connection may argue that the defendant should not be granted mercy. State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 228 (Mo. banc 2006) (quoting State v. Deck, 994 S.W.2d 527, 543 (Mo. banc 1999)). The State may not argue that the jury is prohibited from lawfully granting a defendant mercy by imposing a life sentence. Deck, 994 S.W.2d at 543. Looking at the closing argument in context, the State did not inform the jury that it could not extend mercy to Tisius. Rather, the State's argument attempts to sway the jury that it should reject Tisius' plea for mercy because he did not extend that same consideration to his victims. The circuit court did not plainly err in failing to intervene sua sponte during the State's closing argument with respect to this comment.