Opinion ID: 1836662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the trial court violated flowers's rights secured by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and mississippi law by the submission of an anti sympathy sentencing instruction.

Text: Flowers argues that the trial court submitted an anti-sympathy instruction to the jury, and thus, committed reversible error. The State argues that Flowers did not object to this instruction, but as stated above, we will address this issue under the plain error rule. The State also argues it is well-settled law that, although the jury may not be instructed to totally disregard sympathy during deliberations, the jury may be instructed as they were here. ¶ 101. Sentencing Instruction Number 1 stated, in pertinent part: You should consider and weigh any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as set forth later in this instruction, but you are cautioned not to be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. (emphasis added). Both Flowers and the State cite to King v. State, 784 So.2d 884 (Miss.2001). In King, this Court held: In Blue v. State, 674 So.2d 1184, 1225 (Miss.1996), we approved an instruction which read in pertinent part as follows: [Y]ou are cautioned not to be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. [B]ecause the instruction does not inform the jury that it must disregard in toto sympathy ... the instruction is a proper statement of the law. Id. King, 784 So.2d at 889. This Court has also held that the use of the words not to be influenced by sympathy does not mean that the jury is instructed to disregard sympathy. Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 351 (Miss.1997). See also Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 759 (Miss.1991). ¶ 102. The instruction given in the case sub judice is the exact instruction upheld in King and Blue. This Court finds the instruction was properly given, and this issue is without merit.