Opinion ID: 1737008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Define Mitigation

Text: In his first assignment of error the defendant contends that the trial judge committed reversible error as he violated defendant's constitutional rights through his failure to explain clearly what statutory mitigating circumstances are and their function in the jury's sentencing deliberations. La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.5. The thrust of the defense's argument is that the phrase mitigating circumstances is a term of art which should have been defined by the judge. Counsel argues that the judge should have advised the jury that mitigating circumstances are circumstances which do not justify or excuse an offense, but which, in fairness or mercy may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability and punishment, citing Spivey v. Zant, 661 F.2d 464, 471, n. 8 (5th Cir.1981). The federal cases to which counsel for defendant has directed our attention do not require that the jury be given definitions of the concept of mitigating circumstances. The jury must receive clear instructions which not only do not preclude consideration of mitigating factors, Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), but which inform the jury of its duty and authority to consider the qualities and characteristics of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense. Spivey v. Zant, supra . We find that the trial judge clearly and concisely instructed the jury on mitigation and its authority to recommend against death. The judge read Code of Criminal Procedure article 905.5 to the jury, emphasized to the jury its authority to consider any other relevant circumstances, and handed the jury a copy of the lists of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Any further attempt to define or expand upon statutory mitigating circumstances may only lead to juror confusion and further efforts to define the definitions. Compare, e.g., State v. McDaniel, 410 So.2d 754 (La. 1982) (noting the traps for an unwary trial court attempting to define reasonable doubt.) Based on the instructions given, the jury could properly exercise its role as finder of fact. This argument appears to lack merit.