Opinion ID: 1959344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Errors Concerning Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Text: The State's burden of proof, although discussed in the Court's charge was not reflected on the jury verdict sheet. Defendant argues that such omission is contrary to our decision in State v. Biegenwald, supra, 106 N.J. at 62, 524 A. 2d 130 ([A]s a matter of fundamental fairness, the jury must find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and this balance must be found beyond a reasonable doubt.). In Biegenwald, we remanded because neither the court nor the verdict form instructed the jury that for the death penalty to be imposed, the state must prove the requisite balance beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 62, 524 A. 2d 130. Unlike Biegenwald, however, the Savage court instructed the jury that to impose death it must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factor. On remand, the trial court shall continue to ensure that the jury is informed of its burden of proof in the balancing process. Defendant also alleges that the trial court failed to explain adequately the meaning of the proffered mitigating factors and the correct method of weighing them. In the event of a retrial, the court should conform the charges to the requirements set forth in State v. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 292-99, 524 A. 2d 188; State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 123, 156-71, 548 A. 2d 887 (1988) ( Bey II ). Defendant proffered as a mitigating factor c(5)(f), the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. Defendant based this proffer on the fact that he had only one prior conviction, a 1981 gun conviction in Connecticut. The jury unanimously rejected this factor. Defendant urges this Court to conduct an independent review of the jury's finding, and to find that this factor exists. We decline to do so. That finding was not against the weight of the evidence, and the jury may again consider it at resentencing.