Opinion ID: 1440383
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: More Terrible/Less Terrible

Text: Appellant raises two primary arguments in regard to the more terrible/less terrible instruction. He first contends that murder cannot, by definition, be less terrible, and that, once again, this Court's decision in Marinelli was wrongly decided. [25] He also asserts the trial court failed to instruct the jury properly as to the Section 9711(e)(8) mitigator, and thus counsel was ineffective for failing to insist on a more specific instruction. There is no merit to either of these claims. Appellant again asks us to revisit the decision reached by the Marinelli plurality, insisting that the instruction, by using the conjunctive and rather than the disjunctive or in describing mitigating factors, restricted the jury's overall consideration of mitigating evidence unrelated to the terribleness of the crime. We have, however, found no merit to this exact argument on numerous occasions before and after Marinelli. See, e.g., Washington, 927 A.2d at 613-14; Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583, 920 A.2d 790, 817 (2007); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 572 Pa. 283, 815 A.2d 563, 587-88 (2002); Commonwealth v. Stevens, 559 Pa. 171, 739 A.2d 507, 527 (1999). Appellant raises no new argument on this issue, and thus provides no reason to revisit the well-settled precedent rejecting his claim. Appellant nonetheless attempts to distinguish the instant case from Marinelli and similar cases by contending that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the Section 9711(e)(8) mitigator, combined with the more terrible/less terrible instruction, narrowed the jury's consideration of mitigating factors even further. While his claim arguably has merit, Appellant cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the court's omission. The jury found in favor of Appellant for the Section 9711(e)(8) mitigator, despite Appellant's concerns, and it specifically listed His Life History as the mitigating factor. See Verdict Sheet at 1. Therefore, even if Appellant is correct in arguing that the trial court impermissibly narrowed the focus of mitigating factors to only those relevant to the murder itself, the jury would appear to have ignored that instruction by finding his difficult family background as a mitigator. Because he cannot demonstrate prejudice, he fails to prove counsel's ineffectiveness. See Basemore, supra ; Pierce, supra .