Opinion ID: 2082485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Caldwell Claim

Text: Appellant alleges as a ground for post-conviction relief that the prosecutor tainted the jury's death sentence determination by repeatedly telling the jury that their decision regarding the death penalty was only advisory. He charges that the prosecutor misstated the law to the panel during jury selection, and the jury was repeatedly told during jury selection that their sentencing decision was merely a recommendation. He argues that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere, and believes that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing for his murder convictions. Appellant also regards trial court instructions given to the jury as violative of his due process rights. One example that appellant cites is: It's not the function of a jury to sentence a defendant. It is solely the responsibility of the Judge, me, and the judge must make the final decision. The jury's opinion is merely a recommendation to me. Appellant highlights other similar examples of both the State and the trial court emphasizing to the jury that their death sentence determination was merely a recommendation. The primary case that appellant cites in support of his argument is Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231. This Court has considered this case in depth in Fleenor v. State (1993), Ind., 622 N.E.2d 140. The Indiana scheme differs from the Mississippi plan in that the Indiana statute gives the final decision to the trial judge, not the jury. The trial judge, not the jury, determines a capital sentence. Past decisions from our Court have reflected this difference. In Burris v. State (1990), Ind., 558 N.E.2d 1067, we noted the similarities between the Indiana death penalty statute and the Florida death penalty statute. In Burris, we looked to a similar case arising in Florida, Adams v. Wainwright, 489 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1211, 103 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989). In Adams, the trial court had concluded that the capital defendant's claim did not derive any merit from the Caldwell decision, because the trial judge, not the jury, is the sole sentencer in Florida. As Justice White wrote for the Court, if the challenged instruction accurately described the role of the jury under state law, there is no basis for a Caldwell claim. Id. at 407, 109 S.Ct. at 1215, 103 L.Ed.2d at 443. Neither the trial court nor the prosecutor told the jury that they were relieved of concern because the ultimate responsibility rested with the judge or this Court. See Conner v. State (1991), Ind., 580 N.E.2d 214. As was the case in Burris and Fleenor, the jury here was simply informed that the responsibility for sentencing rests with the judge. In Indiana, the judge is the decision maker. The Indiana death penalty statute reads, and this Court has supported the notion that an Indiana trial court need not accept the jury's recommendation either for or against the death penalty. I.C. § 35-50-2-9; Martinez Chavez v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 731, 733. The prosecutor's comments concerning the jury's role in the death sentence determination were accurate reflections of the law in Indiana, and did not violate the principles set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Caldwell v. Mississippi . We are also satisfied that the trial judge gave due consideration to the jury's recommendations. After reading the jury's recommendations to impose the death penalty in open court, the trial judge asked both the State and appellant whether either party knew of any reason why the court should not enter judgment on the jury's recommendation. Both the State and appellant declared that they did not have any reason. The judge dismissed the jury, then set the matter for sentencing on a date two weeks following the jury's deliberations. The prosecutor did not misrepresent the law or improperly condition the jury. The evidence does not lead unerringly to the conclusion that the jury had a false impression of their role. The post-conviction court properly denied relief on these grounds.