Opinion ID: 767855
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Penalty Phase Jury Instruction

Text: 98 At the conclusion of Combs's sentencing hearing, the trial court instructed the jury on all seven statutory mitigating factors, rather than just the two raised by defense counsel at the hearing. The instruction read: 99 What are mitigating factors? The statute provides certain mitigating factors, some of which you may not apply to this hearing. Mitigating factors are factors that while they do not justify an excuse or justify or excuse the crime of aggravated murder, nevertheless may be considered by you as extenuating, lessening, weakening, excusing to some extent or reducing the degree of the defendant's blame. You are to weigh as mitigating factors as you may deem applicable in this case the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history, background and character of the defendant, and the following factors which are mentioned by way of illustration and not for the purpose of limiting your consideration. 100 These seven mitigating factors are defined by statute as follows; number 1, whether the victim of the offense induced or facilitated it. 101 Number 2, whether it is unlikely that the offense would have been committed but for the fact the defendant was under duress, coercion, or strong provocation. 102 Number 3, whether at the time of committing the offense the defendant because of a mental disease or defect lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conformhis conduct to the requirements of law. 103 Number 4, the youth of the defendant. 104 Number 5, the defendant's lack of significant history of prior criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications. 105 Number 6, if the defendant was [a] participant in the offense but not the principal offender, the degree of the defendant's participation in the offense and the degree of the defendant's participation in the acts which led to the death of the victim. 106 And number 7, any other factors that are relevant to the issue of whether the defendant should be sentenced to death. 107 Keep in mind that all of these specific factors may not be present in this case nor need they all be present before you can find that the aggravating circumstance is not sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to outweigh the factors in mitigation of the sentence of death. Likewise the existence of any of the mitigating factors I have described to you does not preclude or prevent the imposition of a sentence of death if you find that the aggravating circumstance still does outweigh the mitigating factors by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 108 R. at 1434-36; J.A. at 2804-06. 109 This instruction was clearly improper under Ohio law. In Ohio v. DePew, 528 N.E.2d 542 (Ohio 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1042 (1989), the defendant contended that an instruction on all mitigating factors, including ones inapplicable to the case at hand, impermissibly focuses the jury's attention on the absence of mitigating factors. See id. at 557. The court held that [i]f the defendant chooses to refrain from raising some of or all of the factors available to him, those factors not raised may not be referred to or commented upon by the trial court or the prosecution. Id.; see also Ohio v. Bey, 709 N.E.2d 484, 495 (Ohio), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 120 S. Ct. 587 (1999); Ohio v. Keith, 684 N.E.2d 47, 65 (Ohio 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1063 (1998); Ohio v. Garner, 656 N.E.2d 623, 631 (Ohio 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1147 (1996); Ohio v. Grant, 620 N.E.2d 50, 68 (Ohio 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 836 (1994). On direct review of Combs's conviction, the Ohio Supreme Court cited DePew and explained that the reference to statutory mitigating factors not raised by the evidence was erroneous. See Combs, 581 N.E.2d at 1079. The court found, however, that the error did not require reversal because defense counsel induced the error by proposing the improper instruction. See id. 110 2. Improper Characterization of the Nature and Circumstances of the Offense as a Non-statutory Aggravating Circumstance 111 The Ohio Supreme Court also concluded that the State erred by focusing its closing remarks on the victims' mental anguish prior to death, thereby converting the nature and circumstances of the offense into a non-statutory aggravating circumstance. Under Ohio law, although prosecutors in the penalty phase of a capital case may properly refer to the nature and circumstances of the offense, it is improper to characterize that evidence as a non-statutory aggravating circumstance. See, e.g., Ohio v. Gumm, 653 N.E.2d 253, 262-63 (Ohio 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177 (1996); Ohio v. Landrum, 559 N.E.2d 710, 719 (Ohio 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1127 (1991); Ohio v. Davis, 528 N.E.2d 925, 931 (Ohio 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989). 112 It is undisputed that the only aggravating circumstance listed in § 2929.04 for which Combs was convicted is that the offense at bar was part of a course ofconduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons by the offender. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.04(A)(5) (Banks-Baldwin 1997). At the sentencing hearing, however, the State made the following closing argument: 113 Can you imagine the terror of that? A gun right to your head, was she [Joan] thinking of her husband, who was going to take care of him? Was she thinking about her childhood? Was she thinking about her daughter take me but spare Peggy? That's the aggravating circumstance, what she went through. Or maybe she started to pray, we don't know. He won't tell us.... 114 What did she [Peggy] think when this now hot steal [sic] pressed against the back of her head, she knew she too wasn't going to be given any mercy. What went through her mind, what was she thinking? Was she thinking of little Joey, who's going to take care of him, grandma is gone, I'm going to be gone, who's going to raise my little boy. And then came the pull of that second trigger, and she's gone. That's the aggravating circumstance, that's what you put in your one hand and even if you do find some mitigation and all that that the defendant told you, weigh that. 115 ...What weighs more, these two totally good lives or the defendant's life in the fast lane? 116 R. at 1404-06; J.A. at 2783-85. 117 The Ohio Supreme Court on direct review of Combs's case concluded that these prosecutorial comments were erroneous as a matter of state law. See Combs, 581 N.E.2d at 1077. The court explained: 118 After reading his entire argument, we conclude that the prosecutor did err. The prosecutor did improperly suggest that how the victims were killed and the suffering and mental anguish the victims endured was an aggravating circumstance. Improperly injecting non-statutory aggravating circumstances is error. By continually referring to what the victims were thinking, the prosecutor engaged in gross speculation. 119 Id. (citation omitted). 120 Although the Ohio Supreme Court found that these comments did not warrant reversal, the State should avoid such speculation on retrial.