Opinion ID: 1044041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Parole Instruction and Abuse of Prosecutorial Discretion

Text: The Defendant argues that the trial court's instruction to the jury that if the Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, he would be eligible for parole after twenty-five years, created a false choice in sentencing. He alleges that at the time of the re-sentencing hearing, he had already been imprisoned for seventeen years, meaning that he would be considered parole-eligible in [eight] years if given a `life sentence.' The Defendant argues that by instructing the jury as it did, the trial court effectively eliminated a reasonable alternative sentence to the death penalty, which violated his right to due process of law and heightened reliability under the federal and state constitutions. The State responds that the Defendant's argument flies in the face of the proof he presented during sentencing, which indicated that he would not be paroled if he received a life sentence, and that the Defendant invited any error with regard to the alleged instruction. The Defendant also asserts that the prosecution should have allowed him to plead to an additional charge, such as rape or robbery, with the understanding that the sentence for that crime would be added to the 25 calendar years if the jury sentenced him to life in prison. He argues that this also would have created a reasonable alternative . . . to the death penalty. The State responds that the possibility of a life sentence gave the jury a reasonable alternative to a sentence of death.