Opinion ID: 1489705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Find a Mitigating Circumstance

Text: Wertz next asserts that despite the fact that the jury was made aware that he did not have any criminal history, it erroneously found that no mitigation existed. The State, on the other hand, maintains that the jury did not err in so finding as the jury was not provided with proof that Wertz had no significant prior criminal history. It avers that the jury was made aware that Wertz had no criminal history by way of defense counsel's closing argument and that statements by counsel are not evidence that can be properly relied upon by the jury. We have previously held that 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. See Hill v. State, 331 Ark. 312, 962 S.W.2d 762 (1998). In addition, we have recognized that a jury may generally refuse to believe a defendant's mitigating evidence; 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. See Roberts v. State, 352 Ark. 489, 102 S.W.3d 482 (2003). It is clear to this court that the jury did not erroneously reject any mitigating circumstance. Our review of the record reveals that the only reference to Wertz's alleged lack of criminal history was made during defense counsel's closing argument during the sentencing phase. Defense counsel's credibility aside, we are unable to find any objective proof that was presented of Wertz's alleged lack of criminal history, which would have made a reasonable conclusion inescapable. [5] Moreover, the jury had been instructed that counsel's arguments were just that, arguments, were not evidence, and, in fact, should be disregarded if there was no basis in the evidence for the argument: [e] Opening statements, remarks during the trial, and closing arguments of the attorneys are not evidence, but are made only to help you in understanding the evidence and applicable law. Any argument, statements, or remarks of attorneys having no basis in the evidence should be disregarded by you. For these reasons, it was within the jury's province to disregard or refuse to believe what Wertz claims was mitigating evidence. We, therefore, affirm as to this point as well.