Opinion ID: 867372
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Presumption of death in jury instructions

Text: ¶ 38 Pandeli next asserts that the penalty phase jury instructions were improper because they placed on him the burden of proving that the mitigation was sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. We review de novo whether jury instructions given by the trial court correctly state the law and are constitutional. State ex rel. Thomas v. Granville ( Baldwin ), 211 Ariz. 468, 471, ¶ 8, 123 P.3d 662, 665 (2005). ¶ 39 The trial court issued the following instructions regarding the consideration of mitigating circumstances: The Defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of any mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, although the Defendant need not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Defendant must convince you by the evidence presented that it is more probably true than not true that such a mitigating circumstance exists. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence is a lower burden than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You individually determine whether mitigation exists. Considering the aggravating circumstances you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Sufficiently substantial to call for leniency means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate, in the opinion of an individual juror, to persuade that juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison. Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are of the same quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for a sentence of death and may instead vote for a sentence of life in prison. A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence even if the Defendant does not present any mitigation evidence. ¶ 40 Nothing in the instructions suggests that the Defendant bears the burden of proving that the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency; to the contrary, the instructions state that a juror in equipoise regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not required to vote for death. The instructions make it clear that the sentencing decision is not a fact question and that it must be based upon the juror's assessment of the quality and significance of the mitigating evidence that the juror has found to exist. Id. at 473, ¶ 21, 123 P.3d at 667. Moreover, the instructions did not use the outweighing language this Court has discouraged. Id. The instructions do not create a presumption of death or place an improper burden on the defendant.