Opinion ID: 677091
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury instruction on mitigating circumstances

Text: 43 The trial court issued the following mitigating evidence instruction: 44 If you unanimously find that one or more mitigating circumstances exist sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found by you to exist, then you must return a verdict fixing defendant's punishment at imprisonment for life.... 45 Parkus v. Delo, No. 90-1007C(3) (E.D.Mo.), Resp. Ex. B, at 32 (Instr. 19). Parkus contends that this jury instruction violated his eighth amendment rights by permitting the jury to weigh mitigating evidence against the aggravating circumstances only if all jurors agreed on the existence of one or more mitigating circumstances. See Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). 46 The district court found that Parkus procedurally defaulted this claim by failing to present it on direct appeal or in his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We agree that petitioner procedurally defaulted this claim and demonstrates no ground to remove the default. 47 We also observe that this court recently upheld the constitutionality of the same instruction in Battle v. Delo, 19 F.3d 1547, 1562 (8th Cir.1994). Based on Battle, we would reject Parkus' claim on the merits. 48