Opinion ID: 1058965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Remaining Issues Relating to Instructions

Text: Numerous other issues are waived by Muhammad for failure to make sufficient argument in his brief. He makes insufficient argument that: 1. The trial court should have granted his instruction K defining mitigation. Additionally, here the trial court did define mitigation, it simply refused to highlight any particular evidence as Muhammad wanted; 2. The trial court should have instructed the jury that it could consider life without parole in determining aggravating factors and as a mitigating factor; 3. The trial court should have given his instruction L because the jury was left directionless as to how to weigh mitigation evidence; 4. The trial court should have instructed the jury that the vileness factor applied only to Meyers' killing. Additionally, here the instruction offered was incorrect because the vileness factor could be found based upon depravity of mind as well; 5. The trial court should have granted his instruction T regarding mitigating evidence to be considered in weighing culpability and future violence. The entirety of his argument consists of the following: The jury was entitled to this guidance. 6. The trial court did not make it clear in instructions that the jury could impose life in prison even if it found aggravating factors. The record demonstrates that the jury was properly instructed on this matter. For each of these matters (1-6), Muhammad fails to make sufficient argument in his brief. The matters are waived. Rule 5:17(c).