Opinion ID: 775226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recommendation of Death Penalty

Text: 72 Defendant next argues that the trial court's instructions led jurors to think that the ultimate decision-making responsibility for the death penalty lay elsewhere, in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985). 73 Caldwell held that a capital sentence is invalid when the sentencing jury is led to believe that responsibility for determining the appropriateness of a death sentence rests not with the jury but with the appellate court which later reviews the case. Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 323. This Court, in Kordenbrock v. Scroggy, 919 F.2d 1091, 1101 (6th Cir. 1991)(en banc), found that a jury instruction and prosecutor's characterization of a jury's death sentence as a recommendation was consistent with Kentucky law and did not violate Caldwell. Kordenbrock stated that [i]n order to make out a Caldwell violation, [petitioner] must show that the prosecutor improperly described the jury's role under state law in order to water down their responsibility. Id. (citing Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401 (1989)). 74 The relevant Ohio law is Ohio Revised Code 2929.03(D): 75 If the trial jury unanimously finds, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, the trial jury shall recommend to the court that the sentence of death be imposed on the offender . . . . [I]f, after receiving . . . the trial jury's recommendation that the sentence of death be imposed, the court finds, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, it shall impose sentence of death on the offender. Absent such a finding by the court . . . the court . . . shall impose one of the following [life] sentences on the offender[.] 76 The trial court instructed the jury as follows: 77 All twelve jurors must agree upon a verdict. If all twelve members of the jury find, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstance which [Defendant] was found guilty of committing, outweigh the mitigating factors, then you must return such finding to the Court, and as a matter of law, you would have no choice but to recommend to the Court that the sentence of death be ordered. 78 The final decision as to whether the death penalty shall be imposed upon the defendant rests upon this Court after the Court follows certain additional procedures required by the laws, of this State. Therefore, even if you recommend the death penalty, the law requires the Court to decide whether or not the [D]efendant . . . will actually be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment. 79 (J.A. at 2511-12.) 80 To establish a Caldwell violation, a defendant necessarily must show that the remarks to the jury improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law. Dugger, 489 U.S. at 407. In Kordenbrock, Kentucky law provided that the jury shall retire to determine whether any mitigating or aggravating circumstances . . . exist and to recommend a sentence for the defendant. Upon the findings of the jury, the judge shall fix a sentence within the limits prescribed by law. Kordenbrock, 919 F.2d at 1101 (quoting Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 532.025(1)(b)). Because the judge's characterization of the jury's sentence as a recommendation was found, in Kordenbrock, not to violate Caldwell, we find the similar characterization of recommendation in this case, when Ohio law requires a separate, post-recommendation finding by the court confirming the jury's sentence, was also not in violation of Caldwell.