Opinion ID: 573090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Discretion.

Text: 14 Wilkerson makes an Eighth Amendment challenge to the procedures which Texas imposed on the sentencing phase of his trial. He claims the jury could not give full consideration to his evidence in deciding whether to impose the death penalty. He urges that in his case, Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), establishes that the statute precluded jury consideration of the mitigating value of his young age and his cooperation with authorities. More basically, his attack is that the jury could not exercise the sort of guided discretion which the constitution requires. 15 Wilkerson's sentencing was conducted under a statute which provided, in part: 16 (a) Upon a finding that the defendant is guilty of a capital offense, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.... [E]vidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence.... The state and the defendant or his counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death. 17 (b) On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the court shall submit the following three issues to the jury: 18 (1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result; 19 (2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and 20 (3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased. 21 (c) The state must prove each issue submitted beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury shall return a special verdict of yes or no on each issue submitted. 22 (d) The court shall charge the jury that: 23 (1) it may not answer any issue yes unless it agrees unanimously; and 24 (2) it may not answer any issue no unless 10 or more jurors agree. 25 (e) If the jury returns an affirmative finding on each issue submitted under this article, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. If the jury returns a negative finding on or is unable to answer any issue submitted under this article, the court shall sentence the defendant to confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for life. The court, the attorney for the state or the attorney for the defendant may not inform a juror or a prospective juror of the effect of failure of the jury to agree on an Issue submitted under this article. 26 TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 37.071. 27 The court's punishment phase charge to the jury was, in pertinent part, as follows: 28 The mandatory punishment for capital murder is death or confinement in the penitentiary for life. 29 The burden of proof in this phase of the trial still rests upon the State and never shifts to the defendant. Each Special Issue submitted must be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, before any issue may be answered Yes, all jurors must be convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to such issue should be Yes. If the jury unanimously determines (and only if such determination is unanimous) that the State has proved an issue beyond a reasonable doubt, then the Foreman will so record the Jury's answer to such issue by signing his name to the finding reflecting such answer on the form provided for that purpose. 30 You are further instructed that if any juror, after considering the evidence and these instructions, has a reasonable doubt as to whether the answer to a Special Issue should be answered Yes, then such juror should vote No to that Special Issue in the Jury's deliberations. 31 If ten (10) jurors or more vote No as to any Special Issue, then the answer of the Jury shall be No to that issue, and the Foreman will so record the Jury's answer by signing his name to the finding reflecting such answer on the form provided for that purpose. 32 If there is any Special Issue on which the vote of the jurors is not unanimously Yes or not at least ten (10) in favor of an answer of No, then there shall be no answer for that Special Issue, and the Foreman should not sign his name to any answer form for that Special Issue. 33 You are further instructed that if the jury returns an affirmative finding on each of the issues submitted, this court shall sentence the defendant to death. If the jury returns a negative finding on any issue submitted, the court shall sentence the defendant to confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for life. 34 No objections were made to the court's instructions. 35 In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), the Court held that the death penalty could not be constitutionally imposed unless the discretion of the sentencer is suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 189, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [A]ccurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die by a jury of people who may never before have made a sentencing decision. Id. at 190, 96 S.Ct. at 2933. When we cannot say that an effort to minimize the jury's sense of responsibility for determining the appropriateness of death.... had no effect on the sentencing decision, that decision does not meet the standard of reliability that the Eighth Amendment requires. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 341, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2646, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). 36 The jury's exercise of its sentencing discretion must be channeled by 'clear and objective standards' that provide 'specific and detailed guidance' and that 'make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death'. Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2331, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (quoting Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764-65, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (plurality opinion)). While the jury must be allowed to make an informed decision, this does not require that the jury be informed of every detail in exercising sentencing discretion. Cf. Sonnier v. Maggio, 720 F.2d 401, 408 (5th Cir.1983) (Rejecting the defendant's contention that the court must explicitly instruct the jury on the weight to be accorded aggravating and mitigating factors). 37 The Texas special issues have previously been recognized, in other contexts, as sufficient guides to jury discretion. See Franklin, 108 S.Ct. at 2332; Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 275-76, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2957-58, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). We find them so in the present case also. 38