Opinion ID: 1386274
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instruction on Sympathy, Pity, or Mercy

Text: (42) At defendant's request, the trial court instructed the jury that In your determination of what punishment to impose, you may consider sympathy, pity, or mercy. Nevertheless, defendant now claims that the instruction was erroneous. His argument is that at least on the facts of this case, its words were ambiguous: Did they cover only defendant? Or did they extend  impermissibly  to the victim and perhaps others as well? We disagree. A reasonable juror would have understood the instruction under challenge to allow consideration of sympathy, pity, or mercy only for defendant in deciding whether to take or spare his life. Such a juror could not have taken the language to carry the meaning defendant asserts it suggested. The defendant only coverage of the instruction is practically declared by the words themselves. It is also confirmed by their context. Indeed, one of the instructions, which was given at defendant's request, stated that the listed circumstances in aggravation  which did not include sympathy, pity, or mercy for the victim or others  were exclusive. Defendant concedes that There was nothing wrong with the sympathy instruction in itself. But he goes on to assert that there was something wrong when it was set against the prosecutor's comments relating to the victim. We are not persuaded. The remarks were simply insufficient to preemptively undermine the instruction. [22]