Opinion ID: 1947870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err by instructing the jury to consider only the mitigating circumstance of age?

Text: The appellant was 16 years of age at the time of the killing of Burkett, and this was the only mitigating circumstance that the trial judge instructed the jurors that they could consider. This was in spite of vigorous defense objections that other mitigating circumstances concerning emotional disturbance and extreme duress at the time of the shooting should also be included in the instructions to the jury. The trial judge's limiting instruction was clearly erroneous in view of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), and this Court's decisions in Jackson v. State, 337 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1976), and Washington v. State, 361 So.2d 61 (Miss. 1978). In Lockett, the United States Supreme Court said that the sentencing jury must: ... not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. 438 U.S. at 604, 98 S.Ct. at 2965, 57 L.Ed.2d at 990. (Emphasis added). In Washington, supra, this Court said: In Jackson v. State of Mississippi, 337 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1976), this Court said: `At this hearing, the defendant may prove his lack of a prior criminal record as a mitigating circumstance and may also adduce proof of any other circumstance or combination of circumstances surrounding his life and character or the commission of the offense with which he is charged that would be reasonably relevant to the question of whether he should suffer death or be sentenced to life in prison.' (Emphasis added). It is crystal clear from our holding in Jackson that this Court is committed to the `individualized consideration of mitigating factors' in each case, and that the only limitation placed on the introduction of evidence of mitigating circumstances is that it must be reasonably relevant.  361 So.2d at 68 (Emphasis added).