Opinion ID: 1936088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: court's instruction regarding aggravating factors

Text: After the end of evidence in the penalty phase, the jury was given instructions which included S-1. That instruction provided inter alia: () Whether the capital murder was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment, as more fully defined in other instructions of the Court. () Whether the defendant was previously convicted of another capital offense or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person. () Whether the capital murder was committed intentionally while the defendant was engaged in the commission of kidnapping or flight after committing kidnapping. () Whether the capital murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing the detection and lawful arrest of the defendant. () Whether the capital murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, as defined in other instructions of the Court. ... . The verdict you return must be written on a separate sheet of paper signed by the foreman. Your verdict should be written in one of the following forms: (1) We, the Jury, unanimously find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the following facts existed at the time of the commission of the capital murder: (List or itemize all facts found, if any, from the list under Section A [ Enmund factors] of this instruction which you unanimously agree exist in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt). Next, we, the Jury, unanimously find that the aggravating circumstance(s) of: (List or itemize all of the aggravating circumstance(s) presented in Section B of this instruction which you unanimously agree exist in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt) is/are sufficient to impose the death penalty and that there are insufficient penalty and that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstance(s), and we unanimously find the defendant should suffer death. The jury returned a verdict in less than an hour and after the trial court reviewed the verdict, he addressed the jury as follows: I understand the form of your verdict, but I am not sure that it reads completely as the Court would require to clearly establish your finding in the second, Part B of the instruction. If it is the decision of the jury, then the whether should be changed to the form that the jury finds that there is. You will need to return to the jury room and remove the word whether and make the instruction state where there is, so that it will be clear that you are making those findings. If you will give them this and let's return to the jury room. The defense counsel objected to the trial court's oral instruction. The jury returned a verdict indicating that they had found all five aggravating circumstances. The jury was polled and each agreed that he or she agreed with the verdict. Taylor contends that the oral instruction amounted to a direction to the jury to find aggravating circumstances and he cites Owens v. State, 82 Miss. 18, 33 So. 718 (1903), in support of his contention that the Court's action compels vacation of his sentence. In Owens, this Court, reversing the case because the jury had not truly agreed on a verdict, gave the following instructions: [W]here there are words in the verdict raising an `apparent cloud' as to what the actual intent of the jury is, the court, whether asked or not, should `dispel that cloud,' and have the jury make plain their meaning. And the court, of course, had the amplest power to do this, and, if necessary, to send them back to the jury room to render a clear and unambiguous verdict; and most especially should this ample power be exercised in a capital case. ... . ... It would have been perfectly proper for [the trial judge] to have taken from the charges for the state the one as to the form of their verdict and directed the jury to retire, read the charge, and put their verdict in form. Owens, 82 Miss. at 26-29, 33 So. at 720-21 (quoting Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 542, 558, 23 So. 260, 266 (1898)). See also Miss.Unif. R.Cir.Ct.Prac. 5.14 (if a verdict is so defective that it is not possible to determine the intent of the jurors, the judge shall direct the jurors to reconsider the verdict). Here, the only question is that of whether or not the trial judge in his oral instruction to the jury said anything which would taint the verdict. Because the jury had with them the instruction S-1, and because the court directed them to re-form the verdict if it is the decision of the jury, there was no error.