State v. Perez-Cervantes - 141 Wash. 2d 468, 6 P.3d 1160 (2000)

Rule:

The closing argument is a defendant's last clear chance to persuade the trier of fact that there may be reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. Counsel must be afforded the utmost freedom in the argument of the case and some latitude in the discussion of their causes before the jury. On the other hand, argument by counsel must be restricted to the facts in evidence and the applicable law, lest the jury be confused or misled. Consequently, a trial judge has discretion to restrict closing arguments.

Facts:

Samuel Thomas allegedly robbed Antonio Perez-Cervantes. Thereafter, and presumably in retribution, Perez-Cervantes and several accomplices beat Thomas. During the affray, Perez-Cervantes twice stabbed Thomas with a pocketknife. The stabbing punctured an artery between Thomas’ ribs, which caused extensive bleeding in his chest cavity. Surgery was performed. Two days after returning home from the hospital, Thomas died. The medical examiner ruled that Thomas’ death was due to a stab wound. Acute cocaine and heroin abuse were listed on the death certificate as contributing factors. The trial court precluded Perez-Cervantes’ counsel from arguing to the jury that Thomas’ death was caused by his use of drugs, or his failure to seek medical attention. 

Issue:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in preventing Perez-Cervantes’ counsel from arguing to the jury that Thomas’ death was caused by his use of drugs, or his failure to seek medical attention?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that there was no evidence that victim's drug use or failure to seek medical attention caused a fatal injury independent of the stabbing, or that these acts constituted a subsequent, proximate cause that defendant could not have reasonably anticipated. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in preventing Perez-Cervantes’ counsel from making this argument to the jury.