Opinion ID: 1305815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Penalty

Text: Cardwell contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury at the penalty phase of the trial. Specifically, he asserts that granted Instruction No. 1, standing alone, was incomplete and misleading. He further asserts that the court erred in refusing his proffered Instruction No. A. Instruction No. 1 told the jury that it must decide whether Cardwell shall be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life and that, before the penalty can be fixed at death, the Commonwealth must prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt either or both of the aggravating factors, i.e., vileness or future dangerousness. The instruction also told the jury that, if the death penalty is not justified, then Cardwell's punishment shall be fixed at life imprisonment. Finally, the instruction stated that, if the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the aggravating factors, then the jury should fix Cardwell's punishment at life imprisonment. Proffered Instruction No. A, which the court refused, would have told the jury that it was not compelled to impose the death penalty even if [the jury] find[s] one or both of [the factors] proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Cardwell claims that the instruction granted by the court did not make clear to the jury that it was free to fix punishment at life imprisonment even if it found either or both aggravating factors. We disagree. In Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222, 244-45, 427 S.E.2d 394, 408-09, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 143, 126 L.Ed.2d 105 (1993), we held that the law as stated in instructions substantially similar to Instruction No. 1 adequately informed the jury that the death penalty was not mandatory even if both aggravating factors were proven by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. We further held that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant an essentially duplicative instruction which was substantially similar to proffered Instruction No. A. Id. at 245, 427 S.E.2d at 409. We adhere to our prior ruling and reject Cardwell's claim.