Opinion ID: 853762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Clemency Instruction

Text: Dye contends that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on clemency. Indiana Code § 35-50-2-9(d) provides, in relevant part, that [t]he court shall instruct the jury concerning ... the availability of good time credit and clemency. [17] Dye tendered an instruction that provided: The Governor of Indiana has the power, under Indiana Constitution, to grant reprieve, commutation, or pardon to a person convicted and sentenced for murder. The Constitution leaves it entirely up to the Governor whether and how to use this power. This power is used sparingly and its imposition, while possible, should not be considered as a likely result. Over Dye's objection, the trial court struck the last sentence of this tendered instruction. Dye argues on appeal that what trial counsel sought to do was eliminate speculation through complete and accurate information about the possibility of clemency.... The speculation that jury could have entertained is endless. [18] A trial court erroneously refuses a tendered instruction, or part of a tendered instruction, when: (1) the instruction correctly sets out the law; (2) evidence supports the giving of the instruction; and (3) the substance of the tendered instruction is not covered by the other instructions given. Byers v. State, 709 N.E.2d 1024, 1028-29 (Ind.1999). The last sentence of Dye's tendered instruction fails on both the first and second prongs. A correct statement of the law regarding clemency is provided for by the Indiana Constitution and by statute. [19] The part of Dye's tendered instruction that was refused by the trial court was not a statement of law at all. Rather, it was a statement of historical practice surrounding clemency in Indiana. Moreover, not only is this language not legal in nature, there is no basis to conclude that it was correct, if viewed as a prediction of future Governors' actions. Although the exercise of the power to grant clemency may have been rare under current and prior Indiana Governors, there is no way to determine whether a future Governor may alter this trend of executive restraint and grant clemency to a significant number of inmates. See generally Isabel Wilkerson, Clemency Granted to 25 Women Convicted for Assault or Murder, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 22, 1990, at 1 (discussing the grant of clemency by former Ohio Governor Richard Celeste to women convicted of killing or assaulting husbands or companions alleged to have physically abused them). The trial court did not err by modifying Dye's tendered instruction on clemency.