Opinion ID: 867277
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury instruction regarding mitigation

Text: ¶ 54 After consulting his attorney, family, and outside counsel, Hargrave made a considered decision not to present mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of his trial, although he chose to allocute. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the judge instructed the jury, without objection, as follows: Both parties have had an opportunity to present additional evidence to you in the penalty phase. However, neither party was required to present additional evidence in the penalty phase. . . . . ... [T]he defendant had the opportunity to prove the existence of mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proving the existence of mitigation is on the defendant. ¶ 55 Hargrave argues that these instructions improperly commented on the evidence and erroneously placed a burden on him to testify. Because Hargrave failed to object, we review his claim for fundamental error. Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶ 19, 115 P.3d at 607. ¶ 56 There was no error. The instructions given correctly state the law. Moreover, the trial court also instructed the jurors that (a) they must not consider the defendant's choice not to present mitigating evidence in their deliberations, (b) they should give the defendant's statement [in allocution] as much weight as [they] feel it deserves under all the facts and circumstances of this case, and (c) they could also consider any other relevant mitigation evidence presented during any phase of the trial, even if it was not proposed by either of the parties.