Opinion ID: 1913318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 49

Heading: d-22-mitigating factors instruction

Text: ¶ 214. Holland also asserts that denial of the original D-22 was error. The amended D-22 omitted the part of the original D-22 which stated, You must find a mitigating circumstance if it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. ¶ 215. Holland cites no support for his assertion. Accordingly, it is barred under Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss. 1989). Furthermore, alternatively, considering the merits of this issue, this Court's holding in Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1271-72 (Miss. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 927, 115 S.Ct. 314, 130 L.Ed.2d 276 (1994), expressly refused to find error in an instruction which did not give the exact burden of proof for mitigating factors. Thus, there is no merit to this issue.