Opinion ID: 1244833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Incorporation of Guilt Phase Instructions

Text: Defendant contends that incorporating the guilt phase instructions into the penalty phase produced several erroneous instructions. In addition to his claims concerning the antisympathy instruction discussed above and his claims concerning the reasonable doubt instructions that are discussed below, he claims that the incorporation of the guilt phase instructions tended to confuse the jury and to misdirect its attention to the evidence produced in the guilt phase as opposed to that of the penalty phase. Defendant's argument fails for two reasons. First, we have previously held that the State may use the aggravating circumstances found at the guilt phase to support its case during the penalty phase. [216] Second, defendant has failed to explain how the instructions confused the jury when their applicability was facially apparent. Although defendant lists a number of instructions from the guilt phase that were arguably not applicable to the penalty phase, he does not explain why these instructions would confuse the jury. We find no error in the court's incorporation of the guilt phase instructions.