Opinion ID: 1753481
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statutory Mitigator Instruction

Text: Glass argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a specific instruction regarding the statutory mitigator of age. As a result, Glass claims, the jury was unable to consider . . . youth as mitigation. This claim is without merit. Counsel pursued a reasonable trial strategy in not requesting a specific instruction regarding Glass' age. The state's list of aggravating circumstances alleged that the murder was wantonly vile and involved a sexual assault and kidnapping. Counsel testified that the best course of action was to submit the general mitigating circumstances instruction that permits the jury to consider any fact as mitigation. Counsel further testified that offering a specific mitigating instruction on Glass' age would invite the jury to compare or juxtapose that instruction with . . . the list of aggravating circumstances that the State wants the jury to consider and that this would cause the jury to balance . . . the penalty phase process in favor of the State. . . . Based upon this reasoning, counsel decided to rely on the general mitigating circumstance instruction so that the jury could consider any fact as mitigation and to avoid unduly focusing the jury's attention on Glass' age. Moreover, the jury was instructed that it could consider any and all evidence in mitigation and counsel argued that Glass' age was a mitigating factor. This was reasonable trial strategy. There was no prejudice. The motion court did not clearly err in denying this claim.