Opinion ID: 1392571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: solicitor's penalty phase summation

Text: Appellant next asserts that the solicitor's penalty phase closing argument denied him a fair and constitutionally reliable determination of his sentence. We disagree. Appellant attacks three (3) portions of the summation. First, the solicitor informed the jury that a death penalty verdict would send a message to surrounding counties that [Y]ou don't do that [murder] in Chesterfield County without paying the price. Next, the assistant solicitor equated the van in which the murders were committed with a courtroom, noting that Adams and ... Kemmerlin didn't have the benefit of having 12 people good and true, their peers, to sit on their trial ... The murderer picked the courtroom ... [and] was their jury. Finally, the assistant solicitor argued that the facts justified imposition of the death penalty: How do I know it was bad enough? Because I brought you something that will make you grimace when you look at it, worse than anything you thought existed in Chesterfield County. A proper penalty phase summation is one carefully tailored so as not to appeal to the personal bias of a juror, nor calculated to arouse his passion or prejudice. State v. Bell , 293 S.C. 391, 360 S.E. (2d) 706 (1987); State v. Reed , 293 S.C. 515, 362 S.E. (2d) 13 (1987). The solicitor must confine his comments to the record and its reasonable inferences and must focus on the characteristics of the defendant and the nature of the crime. State v. Reed, supra . The first and third challenged comments here, when viewed in the context of the entire summation, were no more than recommendations by the solicitor as to the appropriateness of the death penalty based on evidence adduced at trial. The send a message argument here certainly did not rise to the level of arousing juror passion or prejudice. The third challenged comment did not improperly inject the solicitor's personal opinion, but rather served as a legitimate reminder of the gruesome nature of the crime. The second challenged comment, while ill-advised, was isolated and did not improperly focus on appellant's exercise of his jury trial right. Instead, the comment effectively focused the jury's attention on appellant's vicious and arbitrary character in carrying out the illegal executions; it therefore falls within acceptable limits. State v. Bell, supra .