Opinion ID: 6109767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Arbitrary Factor

Text: Lastly, Smith argues that the death penalty was imposed under an arbitrary factor because the jury did not find that he lacked a significant criminal history. During the penalty phase of the trial, Smith did not present any evidence of his lack of criminal history. Instead, after the  defense had made its closing argument, Smith's attorney asked to readdress the jury because he forgot to mention that his client was young and had no previous criminal history. The prosecution and the court agreed that it was necessary to do so. Thereafter, Smith's attorney readdressed the jury and stated that his client is 20 years old and [t]he State and defense agree that my client has no prior convictions. Likewise, the State in its closing stated, As the prosecuting attorney, I'm asking you to check the box that shows he has a minimal record and that he's young. We want you to fill that box. The jury form for mitigating circumstances instructs that For each of the following mitigating circumstances, you should place a checkmark in the appropriate space to indicate the number of jurors who find that the mitigating circumstances probably exists. Despite the request in closing from both parties, the jury returned a signed form 2 and found the only mitigatory circumstance to be that Smith was young at the time of the murder. Specifically, on the section of the form that deals with mitigation of punishment based on criminal history, it says Brad Hunter Smith has no significant history of prior criminal activity. Check one of the following:. The jury checked the option that said, No member of the jury finds that this circumstance probably exists. Significantly, we note, the instruction makes no reference to prior convictions but rather prior criminal activity. Under Rule 10(b)(vii) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Crim., this court must review whether the death penalty was administered under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. A jury is not required to find a mitigating circumstance just because the defendant puts before the jury some evidence that could serve as the basis for finding the mitigating circumstance. Miller v. State , 2010 Ark. 1 at 41, 362 S.W.3d 264 , 288. The jury alone determines what weight to give the evidence and may reject it or accept all or any part of it the jurors believe to be true. Id. However, when there is no question about credibility and when objective proof makes a reasonable conclusion inescapable, the jury cannot arbitrarily disregard that proof and refuse to reach that conclusion. Roberts v. State , 352 Ark. 489 , 509, 102 S.W.3d 482 , 496 (2003). In his reply brief, Smith acknowledges that no evidence was presented to the jury in this regard. Instead, he argues that the absence of evidence establishes this mitigating circumstance. Smith had the opportunity to present evidence of his lack of criminal history to the jury but declined to do so. Further, the circuit court specifically instructed the jury that arguments of counsel are not to be considered evidence. Clearly, the jury did not act arbitrarily when it chose not to find Smith's history of criminal activity (or lack thereof) to be worthy of mitigating the punishment for his crime in this case. The transcript of the record in this case has been reviewed in accordance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i) (2018), which requires, in cases in which there is a sentence of life imprisonment or death, that we review all errors prejudicial to the defendant. None have been found. Affirmed.