Opinion ID: 1103979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: failure to instruct the sentencing jury on the avoiding arrest aggravator resulted in a fundamentally unfair sentencing.

Text: ¶ 99. Puckett contends that he is entitled to have his sentence vacated and a new sentencing hearing held because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on what constitutes avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or affecting an escape from custody. First, this issue was capable of being raised on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred from being considered for the first time in Puckett's post-conviction application. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1). ¶ 100. Without waiving the procedural bar, this claim is also without merit. As the State properly argues, this Court has held that no limiting instruction is needed for the avoiding arrest aggravating circumstance. This Court has recently held that it was unnecessary to have a limiting instruction defining `avoiding arrest' to narrow the aggravator if the evidence reasonably inferred that avoiding arrest was a substantial reason for the killing. Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 355 (Miss.1996). ¶ 101. As was just discussed in Puckett's previous claim, this Court held that there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that Puckett killed Rhonda in an effort to avoid detection. Puckett, 737 So.2d at 362. Accordingly, the trial court's granting of this instruction was not reversible error. Id. Puckett's claim that the instruction on the avoiding arrest aggravator was flawed because it did not define avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest is without merit. See Brown, 682 So.2d at 355.