Opinion ID: 852371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Trial Court Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances

Text: The defendant asserts that the record indicates that the mitigating circumstances outlined above were not considered. Br. of Appellant at 55. His argument on this point consists of his summary of the evidence he claims proved that he suffered from exhibitionism and the severe mental defect of psychopathogy, received poor discipline and training in his formative years, was immature and never self-sufficient, and could be safely housed in the prison system. He argues in part that meaningful jury consideration of mitigation evidence is required by Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 127 S.Ct. 1654, 167 L.Ed.2d 585 (2007). But Quarterman involved whether a jury was impaired from giving meaningful consideration to mitigation evidence; it did not involve an evaluation of whether a jury's mitigation consideration was sufficiently meaningful. At issue was whether the sentencing process was fatally flawed because the jury was  not permitted to give meaningful effect or a `reasoned moral response' to a defendant's mitigating evidencebecause it is forbidden from doing so by statute or a judicial interpretation of a statute. Id. at 264, 127 S.Ct. at 1675, 167 L.Ed.2d at 608 (emphasis added). The defendant here makes no claim that his penalty phase jury was forbidden by statute, judicial interpretation, jury instruction, or from otherwise giving full meaningful consideration to his mitigation evidence, so Abdul-Kabir provides no recourse. The methodology that the legislature adopted in 2002 entrusts to the jury the sentencing determination in cases involving death or life without parole. As to its statutory role of determining whether aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances (and the implicit necessary questions of whether and to what extent mitigating circumstances exist), this is essentially a discretionary function as to which the jury has considerable leeway. Pittman, 885 N.E.2d at 1253. [T]he legislature intended to give the jury the final word in the trial court on sentencing under Indiana's death penalty statute. Pruitt, 834 N.E.2d at 121. Juries are traditionally not required to provide reasons for their determinations. Pittman, 885 N.E.2d at 1254. Here, the jury was extensively instructed regarding the nature of mitigating circumstances and their role in the jury's determination. See, e.g., Final Instructions 14, 15, 18, 20, 23, Appellant's App'x at 1008, 1012, 1013, 1014. The jury returned a unanimous verdict specifically finding that any aggravating circumstance or circumstances that exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances herein. Appellant's App'x at 1028. We must assume that the jury considered the evidence presented in the trial. In any event, given the confidentiality and finality of jury deliberations, the defendant's claim that his evidence of mitigating circumstances was not considered is virtually nonjusticiable. We note, however, such evidence may be appropriately considered during our appellate review of sentence appropriateness in light of the nature of the offense the character of the offender, which the defendant has requested.