Opinion ID: 1755019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the Jury Instruction Adequate?

Text: Key first argues that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on the aggravating circumstance that the offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. Key argues in his brief to this Court that the instruction regarding that aggravating offense was vague and inadequate because the jury was not given any comparison or comparative criteria from which to come to a lawful conclusion. More specifically, he contends that the trial court should have provided the jury with facts from other capital cases to compare to his case in evaluating whether the aggravating circumstance that the offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel existed. The lack of adequate instruction by the trial court, Key contends, falls short of the mandate of Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330 (Ala.1981), in which this Court held that a homicide must be unnecessarily torturous to the victim for the aggravating circumstance that the offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel to exist. This Court has previously addressed the argument Key makes here. In Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala.1991), this Court, relying on Kyzer, held that the trial court was not required to inform the jury of other capital offenses where the death penalty was based on a finding of the existence of the aggravating circumstance in § 13A-5-49(8). In Bankhead, this Court stated: Although a very narrow and literal reading of [§ 13A-5-49(8)] may suggest that such a comparison [between the capital offense at issue and other capital offenses] is required, it would be virtually impossible for the court to implement. Charging the jury on pertinent facts of `other capital cases' would unduly burden the court. It would be unworkable for the court and would thoroughly confuse the jury. This Court has decided upon an approach for the purposes of § 13A-5-49(8). In comparing capital offenses for the purposes of determining whether a capital offense was `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,' the court uses the [ Ex parte ] Kyzer [, 399 So.2d 330 (Ala.1981),] standard. Capital offenses falling under § 13A-5-49(8) are, pursuant to the Kyzer standard, those `conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the victim.' Kyzer, 399 So.2d at 334. 585 So.2d at 125. Because the trial court instructed the jury on the Kyzer standard, we hold that the failure of the trial court to provide comparative criteria of other capital offenses in its instruction to the jury did not amount to error.