Opinion ID: 1771982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the trial court commit reversible error in refusing jury instruction d-5?

Text: Sentencing phase instruction D-5 reads: The Court instructs the jury that you need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. A life sentence may be returned regardless of the evidence. Williams contends that reversible error resulted from the trial judge's refusal of the so-called mercy instruction. The theoretical justifications for the mercy instruction have been articulated in Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 660-63 (Miss. 1983), and in many cases by Justice Hawkins. See e.g. Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 352 (Miss. 1985). Here we are offered the additional argument that, as the prosecutor was allowed to elicit promises from the jurors during voir dire that they would return a death sentence if they believed that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, instruction D-5 was necessary to correct this earlier error. Williams argues that Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-101 allows a jury to sentence to death under certain circumstances as opposed to requiring such a sentence. The argument is not that a mercy instruction should be given in all cases but that in this case, because of the problems created in voir dire, the mercy instruction is necessary. The Attorney General's response is flatly that there is no right to such an instruction. Our case law supports the Attorney General in this regard. Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 348 (Miss. 1985); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 466 (Miss. 1984); Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427, 441 (Miss. 1983); Jordan v. State, 365 So.2d 1198, 1205 (Miss. 1978). It does not follow from the state's extracting promises from the jurors during voir dire that a life option instruction such as the one offered here must be granted. The fact that the jury was properly instructed as to their option of either the death penalty or life imprisonment cures any mistakes made during voir dire. Bingham v. State, 434 So.2d 220, 225 (Miss. 1983); Matthews v. State, 394 So.2d 304, 307 (Miss. 1981). There is no merit to this assignment.