California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hughes, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 27 Cal.4th 287, 39 P.3d 432 (Cal. 2002):
We reject defendant's claim that by suggesting defendant did not "deserve to live," the prosecutor implied there was a presumption that anyone guilty of a special circumstance murder should be sentenced to death. "The prosecutor merely argued that the balance of aggravating and mitigating evidence in this case favored death over the alternative of life imprisonment without possibility of parole." (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 177, 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) We conclude that, viewing the challenged comments in context, the prosecutor merely informed the jury that in his view, in light of the evidence in aggravation, defendant had insufficient redeeming qualities to warrant a sentence of life rather than death.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.