Opinion ID: 2365094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Penalty-Phase Jury's Alleged Failure to Vote Individually on Aggravating Factors

Text: We now turn to defendant's last penalty-phase issue. He contends that the jury reached a non-unanimous verdict in the penalty phase, as evidenced by the fact that it initially concluded, without formal vote that either one or the other aggravating factors had been proven. In response, the State argues that the record demonstrates that the jurors were in agreement that the State had proven both aggravating factors (4(a) and 4(g)) beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, the State maintains that no reasonable juror could have concluded otherwise. Further, the State asserts that because the jurors were convinced that either one or the other factor outweighed the mitigating factors, there was no risk that the jury would have reached a different conclusion had it been instructed to weigh both aggravating factors against the mitigating factors. Our death penalty statute requires the jury's verdict to set[ ] forth in writing the existence or nonexistence of each of the aggravating and mitigating factors. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(3). If the jury finds that all of the aggravating factors outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all of the mitigating factors, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(3)(a). See Bey II, 112 N.J. at 158-59, 548 A. 2d 887 (1988) (citing Biegenwald, supra, 106 N.J. at 62-63, 524 A. 2d 130.) However, if the jury finds that all of the aggravating factors which exist do not outweigh all of the mitigating factors, a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(3)(b). By requiring that the jury be unanimous on the imposition of the death penalty, the statute assures that each juror must accept full responsibility for the imposition of that sanction. Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 157, 548 A. 2d 887. Requiring a unanimous finding on the existence of the aggravating factors is consistent with the general requirement of unanimous verdicts in criminal actions. Id. at 159, 548 A. 2d 887. And, as important as correct jury instructions are in all criminal cases, they have enhanced significance in capital cases. Id. at 162, 548 A. 2d 887. Because we do not allow aggravating factors to be totaled up as bean-counters would do, State v. Moore, 122 N.J. 420, 473, 585 A. 2d 864 (1991), the jury charge must instruct the jurors to make a normative judgment that all of the aggravating factors do or do not outweigh all of the mitigating factors. Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 162, 548 A. 2d 887. Further, a specific charge on the requirement for unanimity is necessary when `there is a danger of a fragmented verdict.' State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628, 637, 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939, 112 S.Ct. 1483, 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992) (quoting United States v. North, 910 F. 2d 843, 875 (D.C.Cir.), vacated in part and rev'd in part on rehearing, 920 F. 2d 940 (D.C.Cir.1990)). The risk of a fragmented penalty-phase verdict is present when there are multiple aggravating factors and the court's instructions fail to make clear that the jurors have to be unanimous as to the existence of each. State v. Harris, 141 N.J. 525, 564, 662 A. 2d 333 (1995) (stating when there are potentially two aggravating factors ... the possibility of a patchwork verdict might genuinely exist). In State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 645 A. 2d 734 (1994), the defendant argued that the court's instructions permitted a death sentence where six jurors found one aggravating factor and six jurors found another aggravating factor. Id. at 489, 645 A. 2d 734. Among those instructions was the statement that `[i]f [the jurors] individually and unanimously find that the State has proven one or more aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt such factor or factors outweigh the mitigating factor or factors ... then the punishment shall be death.' Id. at 490, 645 A. 2d 734. This Court found no error in that instruction, in part, because it made explicit the requirement for unanimous agreement on aggravating factors. Id. at 491-92, 645 A. 2d 734. In addition, any error was rendered harmless by the verdict sheet and the polling of the jury, which together demonstrated the jurors' correct understanding of the law. Id. at 492, 645 A. 2d 734. The present circumstances leave no doubt that the jurors misunderstood the instructions on the unanimity requirement for each aggravating factor. Although the jurors were instructed by the trial court, and were reminded on the verdict sheet that they had to find the aggravating factors unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, they apparently understood that to mean that each juror only had to agree[ ] that one or both of the aggravating factors was proven. Indeed, when the trial court learned that the jurors had interpreted the charge to mean that the individual aggravating factors need not be found unanimously, it agreed that their interpretation was a reasonable one and that the court's explanation was not as clear as it should have been. Accordingly, after discussion with counsel, the trial court sent the jurors back to vote separately on each of the aggravating factors. However, the jurors were not required to weigh again the aggravating factors that they found existed against the mitigating factors. Nonetheless, as noted, the jurors had informed the court that they had concluded that either aggravating factor, individually, or both weighed together, outweighed the mitigating factors. Thus, the court's action succeeded in eliminating the risk that any aggravating factor was found to exist without a unanimous vote by the jury. Reweighing was not required in light of the jury's earlier disclosure. We have held that errors that strike at the core of the jury's obligation to balance the aggravating and mitigating factors in accordance with statutory requirements and prior case law are not rendered harmless merely because the evidence is `overwhelming.' Koskovich, supra, 168 N.J. at 540, 776 A. 2d 144. In a capital sentencing it is essential that each juror individually determine whether each mitigating factor exists and then individually decide whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 565, 628, 751 A. 2d 40 (2000). Here, a question arose concerning the unanimity of the findings on the aggravating factors. The polling of the jury had informed the court of the jury's weighing of each aggravating factor compared to the mitigating factors, and the combined weight of the aggravating factors compared to the mitigating factors. The desire for certainty should have led the trial court to have the jury engage in a reweighing of any aggravating factor found unanimously. But, under the circumstances, we view the remoteness of prejudice as not rising to the level of concern voiced in Koskovich, supra . Here, aggravating factor 4(a), prior murder, was found unanimously. Defendant made no attempt to refute it during the penalty-phase trial and the State's evidence left no room for doubt. Further, the jury had informed the court that either aggravating factor, standing alone, outweighed the mitigating evidence. The court's actions eliminated the initial unanimity question concerning aggravating factor 4(a). Thus, we view this issue of error as harmless under the circumstances.