Opinion ID: 1652300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: counsel raised three issues with respect to the adequacy of instruction s-3 for the first time on direct appeal.

Text: ¶ 7. Jury instruction S-3 contained the especially heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating factor authorized by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(h)(1994). Williams argued on direct appeal of his second sentencing trial that: (1) the instruction failed to speak exclusively to his moral culpability; (2) the instruction mandated to the jury that Williams had, in fact, used a method of killing that caused serious mutilation; and, (3) the instruction was unconstitutional because it was worded disjunctively(or) rather than conjunctively(and). Although the issue was found to be procedurally barred on direct appeal for failure to make a contemporaneous objection, this Court still explored the issue on the merits and rejected the claim. Williams now asserts that the Court did not adequately and realistically deal with these issues and that the opinion did not indicate clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate and independent grounds. The Court's opinion, however, quite clearly held: Alternatively, while not waiving this procedural bar, we independently address these issues and find no merit in the other claimed inadequacies of S-3. Williams finds fault with parts of the instruction and certain words in the instruction such as lack of a mens rea requirement, an alleged directed verdict requirement, and the use of the word or which he says allows the jurors to find the aggravating circumstances without unanimity. While creative, these contentions have no basis and are without merit. After many challenges to the definition of the 5(h) aggravator and its limiting instructions, this Court's approval of an almost identical instruction in Conner mandates approval of the instruction. Conner, 632 So.2d at 1271. The trial court correctly submitted S-3 to the jury to guide it in its determination of the 5(h) aggravator. There is no merit to this issue. Williams, 684 So.2d at 1193. The issue was found to be unequivocally without merit because a nearly identical instruction had been upheld by this Court in Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239 (Miss.1993). The claim cannot be raised again in the guise of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Foster, 687 So.2d at 1129.