Opinion ID: 1058506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Closing Argument by the State

Text: The defendant next objects to a portion of the state's closing argument during which the prosecutor asserted it was patently offensive to argue that the defendant's life should be spared because of his children and that such a plea was equally offensive in view of the defendant's lack of remorse. These statements were made during the state's rebuttal closing following the defendant's plea for mercy based upon his family support and potential for rehabilitation. The trial court cautioned the prosecutor after the defense objected to these statements. The trial court further instructed the jury: Ladies and Gentlemen, let me say to you that the appearance, or lack of appearance, on behalf of Mr. Robinson of any remorse is not a factor for you to consider in determining what the punishment in the case should be.... Lack of remorse is not a statutory aggravating circumstance, and it is not proper rebuttal because the defendant did not argue his remorse as a mitigating factor. However, the jury is presumed to follow the curative instruction of the trial court. State v. Butler, 880 S.W.2d 395, 399 (Tenn. Crim.App.1994). Accordingly, although the prosecutor erred, such error is harmless in light of the curative instruction.