Opinion ID: 1781968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court erred in refusing foster's instructions at sentencing as these instructions would have properly directed the jury.

Text: Foster challenges the court's refusal to grant six of his sentencing instructions: D/S-3; D/S-6; D/S-13; D/S-16; D/S-23; D/S-29. These six instructions are as follows: Instruction D/S-3 The Court instructs the jury that you need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. Instruction D/S-6 The Court instructs the jury that you are not required to find any mitigating circumstance in order to make a recommendation of mercy that is binding on the trial court, but you must find a statutory aggravating circumstance before recommending a sentence of death. Instruction D/S-13 Before you may consider imposing death in this case, you must consider whether mercy is appropriate. You, as a juror, have the absolute discretion to exercise mercy and impose a sentence of life imprisonment upon Ron Chris Foster for any reason or for no reason at all. Instruction D/S-16 You are instructed that you need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. Moreover, even if you find one or more aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances you can impose a life sentence. Instruction D/S-23 The Court instructs the jury that there is nothing which would suggest that the decision to afford an individual Defendant mercy and thereby sentence him to life imprisonment violates the laws of this state or your oath as jurors, and even if you find there are no mitigating circumstances in this case which are worthy of your consideration, then, nevertheless, you still may sentence the Defendant to life imprisonment. Instruction D/S-29 Finally each individual juror must decide for himself whether death or life in prison is the appropriate punishment for Ron Chris Foster. Even if mitigating factors do not outweigh aggravating factors, the law permits the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment out of mercy or a determination that life imprisonment is sufficient punishment under the circumstances. Only if you, the jurors, unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate punishment may you impose the sentence of death. You should indicate your findings on the jury verdict form which you will have with you in the jury deliberation room. Foster does not address these instructions individually. Rather, he seeks to vindicate all six instructions under the same argument. Similarly, the State treats all six instructions simultaneously, nominating all six mercy instructions. After classifying the six instructions as mercy instructions, the State refers to the rule of law in Mississippi that a capital defendant is not entitled to a mercy instruction, but such an instruction may be given at the discretion of the trial court. Wiley v. State, 484 So.2d 339, 349 (Miss. 1986) cert. denied 479 U.S. 906, 107 S.Ct. 304, 93 L.Ed.2d 278 (1986). The State also relies on Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171, 1181 (Miss. 1992) and Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 761 (Miss. 1991) for the same principle. Insofar as the State contends Foster is not entitled to a mercy instruction, the State cannot be refuted. In Jenkins, this Court found no reversible error in not giving a mercy instruction. This Court's rationale in Jenkins is found within the Court's statement: The recent decisions of this Court and of the United States Supreme Court enumerate that a mercy instruction is not required at trial. In Ladner, we held that a defendant has no right to a mercy instruction. Ladner, 584 So.2d at 761. In Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 492-93, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 1262-63, 108 L.Ed.2d 415, 427-28 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the giving of a mercy instruction results in a decision based upon whim and caprice. Thus, the lower court was within its discretion when it denied the mercy instruction below. 607 So.2d at 1181. Upon close examination we find that the complained of instructions are all mercy instructions. Foster, at most, was entitled to an instruction similar to the one given in Edwards v. Thigpen, 595 F. Supp. 1271 (S.D.Miss. 1984), affirmed sub nom., Edwards v. Scroggy, 849 F.2d 204 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied sub nom., Edwards v. Black, 489 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1328, 103 L.Ed.2d 597 (1989). The district court quoted the instruction given in Edwards, which is almost identical to Instruction SSP-4 given in the case sub judice. In considering whether the instruction gave the jury the option to return a life sentence after it found the existence of aggravating circumstances the district court stated: The wording of the first alternative includes the additional phrase and that the death penalty should be imposed, which gave the jury an option of imposing the death penalty or of granting mercy even if the aggravating circumstances outweighed those which mitigated if they felt the death penalty was inappropriate. Taken as a whole, this Court cannot say that these instructions violated the requirement that instructions be clear on mitigation and the option to recommend against death. Spivey v. Zant, 661 F.2d 464, 470 (5th Cir.1981). This Court finds no basis for requiring the jury to specifically be instructed that they may ignore the balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and vote for life imprisonment based on their decision to be merciful. 595 F. Supp. at 1286. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(2)(c) clearly requires that the jury find that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances. See Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 904 (Miss. 1989); Jordan v. State, 365 So.2d 1198 (Miss. 1978); Gray v. Lucas, 677 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir.1982). This Court in Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 150 (Miss. 1991) held that our cases have consistently refused to hold that the Court is required to grant a mercy instruction. Therefore, Foster got all that he was entitled to have in the way of what might conceivably be called a mercy instruction. The lower court was well within its discretion in denying Foster's mercy instructions since this Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to a mercy instruction. This assignment of error is without merit.