Opinion ID: 1149193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Assignment of Error Numbers 7, 13, 20, 24, 25, 26, 33, 35, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55, 57, 63, 66, 67, 71, 75, 93, 96, 112, 113, 116, 119, and 120

Text: In his sixth argument, the defendant claims the court's use of the word recommendation when referring to the jury's verdict at the trial's penalty phase, impermissibly diminished the jurors' sense of responsibility about returning the death penalty. The defendant cites to numerous occasions when both the court and the district attorney referred to the jury's verdict as a recommendation. The record reveals the defendant filed a motion in limine requesting the court use the term verdict or decision as opposed to recommendation when referring to the jury's determination during the trial's penalty phase. The trial court denied the motion, stating the term recommendation was required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 905.7. The exchange between the court and the attorneys reveals all were unaware of the 1988 amendments to La.Code Crim.P. arts. 905.3, 905.6 and 905.7. Although prior to the amendment, the code articles equated a capital jury's sentencing decision to a recommendation, see La. Acts 1976, No. 694, § 1; La. Acts 1985, No. 231, § 1, the 1988 amendment rewrote the articles, eliminating references to jurors' sentencing recommend[ations] and substituting instead determin[ations]. See La. Acts 1988, No. 779, § 1, effective July 18, 1988. As a general principle, the failure to impress upon the jury the seriousness and finality of its decision is a denial of due process and reliable capital sentencing. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). Most recently, in State v. Bourque, 96-0842 (La.7/1/97), 699 So.2d 1, this court ultimately concluded that the district attorney's use of the term recommendation during voir dire did not impermissibly lessen the jury's responsibility. In that case, however, the reference occurred only during voir dire and was made only by the prosecutor, not the trial judge. In contrast, in the instant case, the court referred to the jury's sentence as a recommendation several times in its final instructions during the penalty phase, [18] and the term also appeared on the heading of the verdict form. Therefore, we must consider the context in which [the references were made] to determine whether the references were such that would induce a juror to disregard his responsibility. Id. at p. 3, 699 So.2d at 5. Taken as a whole, and considering the State's argument during the penalty phase, [19] it is apparent the jury was fully aware of the finality of its decision. The use of the term recommendation did not impermissibly minimize the jurors' sense of the importance of their decision. Furthermore, it is clear the references to a recommendation did not imply the jurors' determination would not be binding. As this court previously announced in State v. Tart, 93-0772, p. 43 (La.2/9/96), 672 So.2d 116, 150, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 310, 136 L.Ed.2d 227 (1996), under the circumstances, [n]o juror could have failed to appreciate the nature and gravity of the jury's death penalty decision. see also State v. Lindsey, 543 So.2d 886, 903 (La.1989); cert denied 494 U.S. 1074, 110 S.Ct. 1796, 108 L.Ed.2d 798 (1990).