Opinion ID: 1715269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: special jury instruction

Text: Belcher maintains that the trial court erred when it denied his request to read a special instruction to the jury, listing the nonstatutory mitigators presented. The record reflects that Belcher filed a list of mitigating circumstances with the trial court in statement form, enumerating the nonstatutory mitigators in the case. In denying the defense's request to have the mitigation list read to the jury, the trial court stated: I guess I have both concerns. One that it emphasizes the details of the defendant's mitigation over details of the State's aggravation and, secondly, it does run the risk of leaving out something that the jury might have heard that they would lump into the category of defendant's character, record and background because I didn't mention it in the instruction, which is my instruction to them, they would feel they shouldn't consider it, so I think we'll leave the instruction in the language that has been approved by the Supreme Court.... I'm not going to specifically provide details of that particular mitigator, but the defense can certainly provide those details in the argument. The trial court instead recited a catch-all type of jury instruction stating: Among the mitigating circumstances you may consider, if established by the evidence, are any aspects of the defendant's character or record or background, any other circumstances of the offense that would mitigate against the imposition of the death penalty. [5] We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving a catch-all jury instruction about mitigation instead of giving Belcher's list of nonstatutory mitigators. See Card v. State, 803 So.2d 613, 624 (Fla.2001) (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant's request to give an alternative jury instruction on CCP). Out of fairness to Belcher, the trial court gave serious consideration to Belcher's special instruction, but found that it was not superior to the catch-all instruction. See James v. State, 695 So.2d 1229, 1236 (Fla. 1997) (The trial court is required to give only the `catch-all' instruction on mitigating evidence and nothing more.). Thus, we affirm the trial court's denial of Belcher's request to read the special jury instruction.