Vasquez v. State - Horry County death sentence reversed on PCR
In Vasquez v. State, the S.C. Supreme Court granted post conviction relief, overturned Vasquez's death sentence, and ordered that Vasquez be given a new sentencing hearing. Vasquez was convicted of murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and criminal conspiracy for the deaths of two workers during a robbery at a Burger King in Myrtle Beach, and was sentenced to death.
Vasquez is Muslim, wore a traditional Muslim prayer cap during trial, and called a Muslim imam to testify in mitigation on his behalf. The prosecutor in his closing arguments talked extensively about the 9/11 attack, compared Vasquez's conduct to the 9/11 attacks, and referred to Vasquez as a "domestic terrorist." The Court found that the solicitor's comments were inflammatory, were designed to invoke religious prejudices, and that it was not harmless error.
A solicitor's closing argument must be carefully tailored so as not to appeal to the personal biases of the jury. State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 324, 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996). The State's closing arguments must be confined to evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Id. "A solicitor has a right to state his version of the testimony and to comment on the weight to be given such testimony." Randall v. State, 356 S.C. 639, 642, 591 S.E.2d 608, 610 (2004). However, "[s]olicitors are bound to rules of fairness in their closing arguments," as we have explained:While the solicitor should prosecute vigorously, his duty is not to convict a defendant but to see justice done. The solicitor's closing argument must, of course, be based on this principle. The argument therefore must be carefully tailored so as not to appeal to the personal bias of the juror nor be calculated to arouse his passion or prejudice.
