Opinion ID: 1711324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Comments Regarding Certainty of Penalty Phase

Text: Several times during voir dire, the prosecutor purportedly commented on the inevitability of the penalty phase in this case. The alleged improper commentary, within its proper context, follows:
So the question is we want people that can consider both. I mean, legitimately consider both. Not lip service but make no mistake you're gonna be asked to do this. Okay. It's not just a hypothetical. It is now but later it won't be. The prosecutor made this statement when questioning persons who had equivocated as to whether they could consider both penalty options. He was trying to stress that, assuming the case reached the penalty phase, the jurors would have to consider the reality of considering imposing the death penalty. The motion court did not err in finding defense counsel not ineffective in failing to object.
In questioning venireperson Grothe, the prosecutor said: Make no mistake, I'm not asking you to do one or the other yet, okay? ... I will at some point ask you, but now I want to know if you and the others can consider both. Seconds after this comment was made, the prosecutor again said to Grothe, assuming you're there in that hypothetical case, you would be able to [consider the death penalty]?you could do that in the proper case? Read in the context of the rest of the prosecutor's questioning, the prosecutor's statement is not improper. No objection was necessary.
As part of his opening remarks to one small group of veniremembers prior to voir dire, the prosecutor said: Not all Murder First degree cases are punishable by the death penalty. Only special murder in the first degree cases. Only certain types of murder in the first degree cases are punishable by death. This is one of those where that option will be available to you, assuming you open that first door and assuming This statement does nothing more than observe that the state is seeking the death penalty in this case and that option will be available only if the jury finds the defendant guilty and finds aggravating circumstances. The point is denied.
But, I do want to tell you that, make no mistake about this, I will be standing before you asking you to impose the death penalty. Defense counsel objected. The prosecutor clarified that he was asking the question in a hypothetical situation. Defense counsel asked the state to rephrase the question. Instead, the trial court asked the venireperson whether he understood that the question as to ability to impose the death penalty was based at this point only on an assumption that the trial reached that point. The venireperson said he understood. To the extent the prosecutor's initial statement may have been improper, the prosecutor's and the trial court's subsequent explanations averted any harm. The point is denied.
The prosecutor said in the context of explaining the trial procedure, that if the jury found the defendant guilty and if the jury found aggravating circumstances, then the jury would have to actually consider whether to impose the death penalty or not. He then said: And, make no mistake about this as well, ladies and gentlemen, you will assess punishment in this case. The Jury assesses punishment. The Jury imposes the sentence. In making this statement, the prosecutor attempted to press upon the jury that the question of whether the death penalty should be imposed would be their decision to make, should they reach that point. The prosecutor's statement, in context, was not improper. Roberts also contends the above statements reflected the prosecutor's opinion that the penalty phase was inevitable in this case. The statements, when read in context, do not impermissibly reflect the prosecutor's opinion. The prosecutor, in making the challenged statements, sought to determine whether the prospective jurors could actually consider the death penalty if confronted with that choice. The entire context of the voir dire reflects that the prosecutor took pains to differentiate between the theoretical consideration of the death penalty that many people may engage in from time to time in social discussion, and actual consideration of the reality of the imposition of the death penalty each potentially faced if a member of the jury. This is the proper purpose of death qualification voir dire. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the statements. The point is denied.