Opinion ID: 1739694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: use, in an instruction, of the presence of prior criminal activity as a factor precluding mitigation

Text: Irving argues here that the wording of Instruction S-1 worked against him. The specific language complained of stated, Consider the following elements of mitigation in determining whether the death penalty should not be imposed: (1) Whether the defendant has a significant history of prior criminal activity. Since Irving did have a prior conviction, he alleges that its presence worked against him, by virtue of the instruction, whereas the instruction is intended to focus the absence of any prior criminal activity as a factor working for the defendant. This error, he asserts, was further compounded by the language used by the prosecutor in his closing argument, where he said, Aggravating circumstances, I would say being that he had a criminal record, burglary conviction, didn't learn anything by it, continued his wayward ways even adding to it drugs, drinking and whatever and murder. This argument was raised on direct appeal. There, this Court noted that Instruction S-1 tracked the language of § 99-19-101 in listing the mitigating factors which could be considered. 441 So.2d at 851. This Court also noted that the defendant had requested an instruction (D-4) on mitigating circumstances that was refused by the trial court. Instruction D-4 listed as a mitigating circumstance: (a) The defendant has no record of criminal convictions for crimes involving force or violence to persons. The corresponding language of S-1 was: [(1) Whether the defendant has a significant history of prior criminal activity. Thus, the prior offense of burglary would not have been considered in an unfavorable light by the first instruction, but it would by the second. However, as this Court noted in Irving, Instruction S-1 also contained the following guide to the jury on mitigating factors: (4) Any other matter, any other aspect of the defendant's character or record, and any other circumstances of the offense brought before you during the trial of this cause which you, the Jury, deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant. Thus, the instruction, while it may have impliedly allowed the jury to consider Irving's prior record, also allowed the jurors to consider the fact that his prior record was non-violent as a mitigating factor.