In a prior post on this topic, I began outlining some impermissible types of jury argument. In this post, I’ll continue that discussion with the following additional listing of improper argument: Religious Arguments. The N.C. Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against jury arguments based on religion, see, e.g., State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316 (2002), reasoning that they “inevitably pose a danger of distracting the jury from its sole and exclusive duty of applying secular law and unnecessarily risk reversal of otherwise error-free trials.” Id. at 358 (quotation omitted). Name Calling. Name calling should be avoided in jury argument. N.C. R. Super. and Dist. Cts Rule 12; State v. Augustine, 359. N.C. 709, 736 (2005); State v. Jones, 355 N.C. 117, 133-34 (2002). Specifically, it is improper to refer to the defendant as: a liar, see, e.g., State v. Gell, 351 N.C. 192, 211 (2000); a parasite, State v. Twitty, __ N.C. App. __, 710 S.E.2d 421, 426 (2011); the devil, satan, or a demon, see, e.g., State v. Matthews, 358 N.C. 102, 111 (2004); a monster, Id. at 111; a S.O.B., State v. Davis, 45 N.C. App. 113 (1980); or a criminal, State v. Miller, 271 N.C. 646, 660-61 (1967) (“habitual storebreakers”); State v. Wyatt, 254 N.C. 220, 222 (1961) (“two of the slickest confidence men”); State v. Correll, 229 N.C. 640, 643 (1948) (“racketeering gangster”). It also is improper to compare the defendant to Hitler or to a Nazi. State v. Walters, 357 N.C. 68, 102-05 (2003); State v. [...]
Faculty Coordinators
