In Kelly v. South Carolina (2002), the Court said that in order for future dangerousness to be "at issue," it does not necessarily have to be explicitly argued by the prosecution.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In Kelly v. South Carolina, the Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to inform the jury of his parole ineligibility when the prosecution argues his future dangerousness, even if not explicitly, as part of its strategy to secure a death sentence. This means that future dangerousness can be considered "at issue" based on the overall context of the prosecution's argument, not just explicit statements.

In Kelly V