Opinion ID: 2461850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the penalty phase instructions adequately informed the jury of all the sentencing options.

Text: Appellant contends that the penalty phase instructions failed to inform the jury that a life sentence could be imposed even though the aggravating circumstances were found to be true. This argument does not withstand a review of the instructions given. The first instruction gave the jury three options: Pursuant to the verdict returned by you finding the defendant guilty of murder, and under the evidence presented to you in both stages of this trial proceeding, you shall recommend to the court one of the following three verdicts: (1) a term of 20 years or more in the penitentiary; (2) a term of life imprisonment in the penitentiary; or (3) death. For your convenience, a form for each of these alternatives is provided at the end of these instructions. After properly instructing the jury on aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, the court gave the following instruction: (a) If you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth or existence the aggravating circumstances listed in Instruction No. 10, you shall not make any finding with respect to it. (b) If upon the whole case you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, you shall recommend a sentence of imprisonment instead.  (emphasis added). Then finally the court instructed on the following authorized sentences: You may recommend that the defendant be sentenced (a) to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 20 years or more; (b) to confinement in the penitentiary for life; or (c) to death, in your discretion, but you cannot recommend that he be sentenced to death unless you are satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement listed in Instruction No. 10 (aggravating circumstances) is true in its entirety, in which event you must designate in writing, signed by the foreman, the aggravating circumstances you found beyond a reasonable doubt to be true. (emphasis added). These instructions adequately portrayed the jury's sentencing options and there was no confusion over the discretion to impose a life sentence even if an aggravating circumstance exists. The instructions met the constitutional requirements set forth in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). Therefore, we find no error.