Opinion ID: 852911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recommend and Special Verdict Language in Statute

Text: The defendant also contends that the amended Indiana death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it systematically diminishes the jury's sense of responsibility. Br. of Appellee at 25. He argues that the statute contains several references to the jury's duty as making a recommendation but that nowhere does it state or suggest the jury's role is anything other than advisory. Br. of Appellee at 30. We reject this argument. Although the 2002 amendment did not alter the prior statute's use of the word recommend, subsection 9(e) as amended now explicitly states: If the jury reaches a sentencing recommendation, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(e). Under the statute, there is only one sentencing determination, which is done by the jury. Stroud v. State, 809 N.E.2d at 287, 2004 WL 1153058 (2004). The judge must apply the jury's determination. Id. We assume that jury instructions will make this clear to the jury during the new penalty phase proceedings. The defendant also expresses concern that the provision calling for the jury to receive a special verdict form, Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(d), leads to the conclusion that the court remains free to sentence to death where a jury finds statutory aggravation even if it unanimously recommends a sentence less than death. Br. of Appellee at 38. As discussed above in Part 2, a judge may determine the sentence under Subsection 9(f) if a penalty phase jury unanimously finds one or more aggravating circumstances proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Where a jury finds aggravating circumstances but decides against the death penalty (or against life imprisonment without parole), however, we conclude that with its 2002 amendment to Subsection 9(e) requiring the court to sentence a defendant accordingly, the legislature did not intend to permit a trial court to order a penalty expressly rejected by the jury. The amendment did more than add the following language to Subsection 9(e): If the jury reaches a sentencing recommendation, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Acts 2002, Public Law 117, Section 2. It also deleted prior language providing that [t]he court shall make the final determination of the sentence, after considering the jury's recommendation.... The court is not bound by the jury's recommendation. Id. We therefore hold that once a penalty phase jury reaches a recommendation against the death penalty (or life imprisonment without parole), a trial court may not thereafter enter judgment providing for a greater sentence. [5]