Opinion ID: 1992848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Unanimity on mitigating factors

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court improperly instructed the jurors that they should attempt to reach a unanimous agreement on the mitigating factors. During the penalty phase, the court informed the jury that the law does not require unanimity with respect to the finding of mitigating factors. However, the court added, with respect to mitigating factors, to the extent reasonably possible, you should attempt to reach an agreement regarding whether a particular mitigating factor does or does not exist. According to defendant, the court's comment conveyed an impression that unanimity was preferred, and thus some jurors who might initially have been inclined to apply one of the mitigating factors may have changed their minds in an attempt to reach the improper goal of unanimity. Defendant claims that he is entitled to a new penalty phase, because the instruction on unanimity might have coerced the jury into returning a unanimous verdict. It is black-letter law that a trial court cannot require a unanimous finding of mitigating factors. Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988); State v. Hunt, 115 N.J. 330, 382-85, 558 A. 2d 1259 (1989); Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 160-61, 548 A. 2d 887. In Bey II, supra, we held that [a]ny juror who believes in the existence of a mitigating factor must be allowed to determine whether he harbors such a doubt [that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors] by conducting his or her own weighing process. 112 N.J. at 160, 548 A. 2d 887. During the penalty phase, each juror must individually determine the existence of mitigating factors. Id. at 161, 548 A. 2d 887. Although jurors should exchange views in order to reflect upon their own opinion of the propriety of a death sentence, the purpose of deliberations in the penalty phase is not served by deliberations that continue until the jury can return a unanimous verdict. Hunt, supra, 115 N.J. at 384, 558 A. 2d 1259. Viewed in isolation, the single remark objected to by defendant might suggest that the preferred result is a unanimous conclusion concerning the existence or non-existence of a mitigation factor. However, when the isolated remark is viewed in the context of the charge as a whole, it is clear that there was no error. On at least five occasions, the trial court informed the jury that unanimity on mitigating factors was not required. The jury verdict also provides compelling evidence that there was no confusion among the jurors about the permissibility of reaching a non-unanimous verdict on the mitigating factors. Of the thirty-one mitigating factors submitted to the jury, a non-unanimous finding was returned on nineteen factors. Defendant's claim is without merit.