Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 43

Heading: The Pattern Jury Instruction Regarding the Jury's Determination of the Existence of a Mitigating Circumstance

Text: Mr. Banks asserts that the Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions are inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court's ruling in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 384 (1990) and Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). He argues that these instructions lead jurors to believe erroneously that they must unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstance. While conceding that this argument was rejected generally in State v. Thompson, 768 S.W.2d 239, 251-52 (Tenn.1989), he insists that this case differs from State v. Thompson because the trial court did not give the special additional instruction that [b]ecause different people may have different views about what tends to ameliorate or mitigate... you may weigh and consider any and all circumstances which you feel tend to mitigate the offense or defendant in question. See State v. Thompson, 768 S.W.2d at 251. In this case, the trial court instructed the jurors that [t]he defendant does not have the burden of proving mitigating circumstances. There is no requirement of jury unanimity as to any particular mitigating circumstance or that you agree on the same mitigating circumstance. We find that this instruction does not lead jurors to believe that they must unanimously agree on the existence of a mitigating circumstance. See, e.g., State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d at 718 (appendix).