Opinion ID: 1707183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury at the sentencing phase to disregard sympathy.

Text: ś 354. Evans argues that Sentencing Instruction C-1 improperly instructed the jury to totally disregard sympathy in determining the appropriate sentence. The language complained of by Evans is as follows: You should not be influenced by bias, sympathy, or prejudice. Your verdict should be based on the evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or conjecture. ś 355. Despite Evans' current claims, the record reveals that any error regarding this instruction was waived because defense counsel voiced no objection and approved the instruction. This Court has repeatedly held that [t]he assertion on appeal of grounds for an objection which was not the assertion at trial is not an issue properly preserved on appeal. Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1264 (Miss.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1025, 116 S.Ct. 2565, 135 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1996), reh'g denied, 518 U.S. 1048, 117 S.Ct. 26, 135 L.Ed.2d 1119 (1996); Haddox v. State, 636 So.2d 1229, 1240 (Miss.1994). ś 356. In Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 810 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1117, 105 S.Ct. 803, 83 L.Ed.2d 795 (1985), this Court held that [w]e have in death penalty cases the prerogative of relaxing our contemporaneous objection and plain error rules when the interest of justice so requires. The State, acknowledging that proper objection was made to instruction S-1, presumes that Evans is appealing the submission of this instruction. Defense counsel, relying on Pinkney v. State, 538 So.2d 329, 351 (Miss.1988), cert. granted, vacated, 494 U.S. 1075, 110 S.Ct. 1800, 108 L.Ed.2d 931 (1990), on remand, 602 So.2d 1177 (1992), objected to S-1 on the grounds that it instructed the jury to totally disregard sympathy. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that Evans intended to challenge instruction S-1 and its directives regarding sympathy. Instruction S-I, in pertinent part, contains the following language: You should consider and weigh any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as set forth later in this instruction, but you are cautioned not to be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. ś 357. In Pinkney v. State, 538 So.2d 329, 351 (Miss.1988), cert. granted, vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1075, 110 S.Ct. 1800, 108 L.Ed.2d 931 (1990), on remand, 602 So.2d 1177 (1992), this Court held that a jury may not be instructed to disregard, in toto, sympathy.... Here, the jury was not instructed to disregard sympathy in toto. Rather, the instruction given is identical to that approved by this Court in Blue v. State, 674 So.2d 1184, 1225 (Miss.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 588, 136 L.Ed.2d 517 (1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1264 (Miss.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1025, 116 S.Ct. 2565, 135 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1996), reh'g denied, 518 U.S. 1048, 117 S.Ct. 26, 135 L.Ed.2d 1119 (1996), and Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 671 (Miss.1991). In Willie, this Court held: The United States Supreme Court has found that the anti-sympathy language used in the preceding instruction passes constitutional muster. California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 542-43, 107 S.Ct. 837, 839-40, 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987). We find that because the instruction does not inform the jury that it must disregard in toto sympathy and leaves the jury the option to vote for or against the death penalty, the instruction is a proper statement of the law. See Pinkney v. State, 538 So.2d 329, 351 (Miss.1988), vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1075, 110 S.Ct. 1800, 108 L.Ed.2d 931 (1990); Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 788 (Miss.1987). This argument has no merit. Willie, 585 So.2d at 677. This issue is without merit.