Opinion ID: 2226837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the death penalty eligibility hearing

Text: The State sought the death penalty on the basis that defendant had murdered two individuals: Coleman and the victim of the murder and armed robbery for which defendant was convicted in 1974. Defendant elected to have the jury determine his eligibility for the death penalty. At the first phase of the death penalty hearing, the State introduced proof of his age and the 1974 murder conviction. The State urged the jury to find defendant eligible, arguing that the prosecution was confident the only fair verdict form that you will sign, and again your verdict on eligibility must be unanimous, must be unanimous you find him eligible or unanimous you find him ineligible. That means all 12 must agree on the verdict. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the prosecutor's statement of the law was inaccurate. The court sustained the objection, telling the jury that it should read the instructions and follow the law. The prosecutor interjected that a reading of the verdict forms and instructions made it clear that it has to be a unanimous decision, that all 12 of you people must sign either verdict. In closing argument, defense counsel stated to the jury that they would be given a verdict form to sign and if one person really would like to save this man's life, that's all it needs. One person. You don't all have to say yes we will save his life. The State objected to this comment; the judge simply advised the jury again that the correct law would be stated in the jury instructions. The court instructed the jury on the eligibility issues, stating, in part, If you cannot unanimously decide that the defendant is eligible for the death sentence under the law, there will be no second part of the death penalty hearing. The court will impose a sentence other than death. The jury found defendant eligible for the death penalty.