Opinion ID: 495040
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury's Limited Responsibility

Text: 41 In response to the closing argument of Campbell's counsel to the sentencing jury--an argument grounded primarily on notions of humanity, moral conscience, mercy and forgiveness, and Christian teachings--the prosecutor began his rebuttal argument with the following statement: 42 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the Court did not instruct you to debate the death penalty, whether it is proper or improper in this case. The Court instructed you that you are to answer one sole question. Are there or are there not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency? 43 Campbell contends that this argument runs afoul of the principles set forth in Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 323, 105 S.Ct. at 2636-37. There, the Court reversed a death sentence on the ground that the prosecutor urged the jury not to view itself as determining whether the defendant would die, because a death sentence would be reviewed for correctness by the State Supreme Court. Id. The Court stated that arguments regarding automatic appellate review of a death sentence minimize[d] the jury's sense of [its 'truly awesome'] responsibility for determining the appropriateness of death. Id. at 341, 105 S.Ct. at 2646. Such argument, therefore, does not meet the standard of reliability that the Eighth Amendment requires. Id. 44 We agree with the district court that Campbell's contention is without merit. The prosecutor's remark regarding the jury's duty not to debate the death penalty can be construed only as a general comment on the validity of the death penalty per se. It was therefore proper rebuttal. The comment regarding the jury's responsibility to answer one sole question was both accurate and relevant to a legitimate state penological interest. Id. at 335, 105 S.Ct. at 2643. The argument properly focused the jury's attention on its charge to decide whether there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency. 45 Moreover, Campbell can show no prejudice from the prosecutor's argument. The court clearly instructed the jury on its proper role. At the outset of the sentencing proceeding, the trial court instructed the jury: 46 If the jury unanimously finds that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency, the Court shall sentence the defendant to death. The Court may not suspend or defer the execution or imposition of that sentence. 47 The court repeated that instruction in its formal instructions to the jury prior to argument of counsel. In his argument to the jury, the prosecutor stated: 48 [T]he Court has instructed you that the result of an affirmative answer, a unanimous affirmative answer to that question, is that the Court must impose the death sentence upon the defendant. So I will not try and dance around that question because that will be the result. And we are asking that you answer that question unanimously in an affirmative fashion. 49 The thrust of the defendant's entire argument to the jury was on the jury's choice between life or death. The jury was well aware of its awesome responsibility for deciding Campbell's fate. Clearly, the fleeting remark Campbell objects to had no effect on the jury's sentencing decision. See Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. at 2646.