Opinion ID: 760927
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

Text: 43 Whether these circumstances existed, and whether these circumstances are mitigating, must be decided by you. 44 Mr. Cooks argues this jury instruction misled the jury into believing these were the only mitigating circumstances that could support a life sentence. Further, because Mr. Cooks claims these circumstances applied only to his co-defendant, he argues the jury effectively was instructed there was no mitigating evidence to support him. According to Mr. Cooks, the prejudice he suffered as a result of Jury Instruction No. 54 was exacerbated by his co-defendant's counsel's closing statements that Jury Instruction No. 54 stated the law and that his client was a young, inexperienced gentleman, led into crime by an older, convicted criminal. 45 As stated above, we review jury instructions pertaining to mitigating evidence only to ensure there is no reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevented the consideration of relevant evidence. Duvall, 139 F.3d at 790. While we appreciate Mr. Cooks' concern Jury Instruction No. 54 specified mitigating evidence that arguably did not apply to him, 4 and referred to the defendant in the singular when in fact the case was being tried against two defendants, we do not believe the instructions, read as a whole, prevented the jury from considering any and all mitigating evidence that might support either defendant. 46 Despite Jury Instruction No. 54's infirmities, the fact remains Instruction No. 53 broadly defined mitigating circumstances as any circumstances that, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability or blame, and then left the determination of what constituted mitigating circumstances in this case to the jury's sound discretion. We fail to see how the specificity of Jury Instruction No. 54 in any way undermined the general directives of Instruction No. 53. Moreover, we see nothing patently erroneous or inappropriate in the closing comments of Mr. Masters' counsel--certainly nothing that rises to the constitutional level necessary to support Mr. Cooks' habeas petition. Consequently, relief is denied on this ground. 47 Mr. Cooks' concerns with Jury Instruction No. 54 appear to stem not so much from the instructions themselves or the remarks of his co-defendant's counsel, but from his own attorney's failure to present mitigating evidence on his behalf, or to offer any alternative or supplemental instructions. We thus proceed to consider Mr. Cooks' ineffective assistance of counsel claims.