Opinion ID: 1751000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in granting sentencing instruction s-1?

Text: Giles makes numerous arguments contending that the trial court erred in granting Instruction S-1, a comprehensive instruction which guided the jury in its decision at the penalty phase of the trial. Among the assignments of error was the fact that the trial court failed to inform the jury of its life option. Sentencing Instruction S-1 in the case at hand provided a space for the foreman of the jury's signature after the death penalty option. The instruction, however, did not provide a space for a signature after the option of life imprisonment or the option of being unable to agree on punishment. Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171 (Miss. 1992) provides clear guidance on this issue since the instruction questioned in Jenkins is essentially the same as the one in the case at hand. This Court held: [W]e simply note that Instruction C-1-S-A, as given by the lower court, was erroneous. ... Page three contained the first option, the form of the verdict for the death penalty, and concluded with a line designated for the foreman's signature. Page four contained Option Two, the form of the verdict for life imprisonment, and Three, the verdict if a unanimous four contained Option Two, the form of the verdict for life imprisonment, and Three, the verdict if a unanimous decision could not be reached, but provided no spaces for the foreman's signature. We concerned that the instruction as written and printed could cause the jury to neglect Options Two and Three. Upon retrial, we suggest that the trial court revise this instruction to more clearly instruct the jury. Jenkins, 607 So.2d at 1180. This assignment of error lacks merit since the only objection interposed by defense counsel to Instruction S-1 concerned the especially heinous, atrocious or cruel language of the instruction. Defense counsel affirmatively stated that it was otherwise satisfied with the instruction. In Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632 (Miss. 1988), the defendant on appeal assigned as error the granting of several sentencing instructions. This Court, however, held: The record reflects that no objection was made to any of the three instructions set forth above. Therefore, the points are procedurally barred and are not properly before the Court for consideration. Moawad, 531 So.2d at 635. See Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 680 (Miss. 1991); Settles v. State, 584 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Miss. 1991); Walker v. Graham, 582 So.2d 431, 432 (Miss. 1991). Since the only objection that Giles interposed to Instruction S-1 was the included aggravating factor of especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, all other grounds were waived when defense counsel affirmatively stated that it was otherwise satisfied with the instruction. See Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 330, 102 L.Ed.2d 348 (1988). Although this issue is procedurally barred, the trial court should not allow an instruction such as this on remand.