Opinion ID: 867266
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cumulative Mitigation Instruction

Text: ¶ 45 Chappell argues the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that the cumulative effect of mitigation was a separate and independent mitigating factor. During the penalty phase, the trial court instructed the jurors to individually determine if the total[ity] of the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, and to decide how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating factors are when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors. The court declined to give Chappell's requested instruction, stating the information under mitigation assessment and the sentence on burden of proof covers everything. ¶ 46 The instructions fulfilled the purpose of Chappell's proffered instruction by informing jurors that they should consider his mitigation evidence in its totality. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give Chappell's requested instruction.