Supreme Court of Kentucky Finds No Error With Prosecutor Comparing Defendant’s Conduct to “Grand Theft Auto” in Closing Argument
Some courts have found that prosecutors are per se prohibited from making “send a message” arguments to jurors during closing arguments in which they suggest that the jury has some obligation to cure the community’s problems through its verdict. See Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 165 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 2005). However, “Kentucky courts have not drawn a bright line rule prohibiting such statements.”
Even if Kentucky did have such a bright line rule, though, I don’t think that it would have applied in Stone v. Commonwealth, 2025 WL 2998790 (Ky. 2025). In Stone, Lee Stone was convicted by a jury on two counts of theft by unlawful taking (TBUT) over $1,000; one count each of fourth-degree assault; leaving the scene of an accident; possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia; TBUT under $500; and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender.
During closing arguments,
the Commonwealth characterized Stone’s actions as “a video game, like Grand Theft Auto, where you can just steal vehicles, smash them into people, run off, and there’s no consequences.” Stone timely objected and claimed the Commonwealth was signaling to the jury to send a message. The Commonwealth argued its words were merely a direct reflection of Stone’s conduct on July 13, 2023. The circuit court overruled the objection, and, again, Stone failed to request an admonition.
In affirming Stone’s convictions, the Supreme Court of Kentucky found that the prosecutor’s argument “was mere hyperbole to counter the defense that Stone ‘simply made poor choices.'”