Opinion ID: 1604196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: the instructions given ricky chase's jury impermissibly limited the consideration of mitigation evidence.

Text: In this assignment of error, Chase complains of the granting of jury instructions which he contends limited mitigation evidence. Chase did not object to the granting of these instructions or raise this issue at trial. This issue is procedurally barred. The court instructed the jury in Jury Instruction D-38 as follows: The Court instructs the jury that a mitigating circumstance does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to exist. You must find that a mitigating circumstance exists if there is any substantial evidence to support it. Chase contends that the jury should not be limited to substantial evidence, but Chase was the party submitting this instruction. His complaint should not be considered. The other complaint concerns Instruction S-1. Chase wrongly argues that this instruction requires unanimity among the jurors on mitigating circumstances. Chase states that seven times during the instruction the jury was told it must make unanimous findings or unanimously agree. These refer to the Enmund finding, the aggravating circumstances, and the sentence of death. None remotely refers to mitigating circumstances. Chase also argues that when given the examples in mitigation and told that they could consider any other circumstance brought to you during the trial of this cause which you, the Jury, deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant, the jury would conclude that the mitigating factors also must be unanimously agreed on by the jury. This interpretation does not follow from the language in the instruction and there is not a reasonable likelihood that the jury will make this interpretation. As the State notes, a similar argument was addressed in Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 150 (Miss. 1991). The Court recognized that the instruction did not violate the holding in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990) and McNeil v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 1050, 110 S.Ct. 1516, 108 L.Ed.2d 756 (1990) or Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). The Court also noted that similar arguments had been addressed and rejected in Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657, 668 (Miss. 1990); Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d at 760; Willie v. State, 585 So.2d at 681 and Shell v. State, 554 So.2d at 905. The Hansen Court concluded: In Shell the words unanimous or unanimously did not appear in the mitigating circumstances portion of the jury instructions but instead were found only in the aggravating circumstances portion. We held the instructions did not offend Mills' prohibitory injunction and that Mills contained no affirmative one. Such is the case now before this Court. The mitigating circumstances portion of the instruction does not contain unanimous or unanimously. Only the aggravating circumstance part contains these words. No instruction says, implies or intimates to any reasonably literate juror that he or she should await unanimity before considering a mitigating circumstance. 592 So.2d at 150. There is no merit to Chase's claims even despite a failure to timely object. This claim is procedurally barred.