Opinion ID: 2107875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Instruction

Text: Appellant alleges that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows: A person who is convicted of a crime by a jury is sentenced by the judge. By law the judge must hold a sentencing hearing in which a written pre-sentence report and all matters in mitigation and aggravation are considered. After the hearing the judge may have various sentencing alternatives, including imprisonment within a certain range. That is why these instructions do not contain any information concerning the penalties that could be imposed upon a conviction. Hatchett asserts that this instruction was irrelevant because the jury serves no sentencing function. Ind. Code § 35-50-1-1. (Burns 1985 Repl.). While he is correct that instructions informing the jury of specific penalties are irrelevant, DeBose v. State (1979), 270 Ind. 675, 389 N.E.2d 272, the inverse conclusion that instructions explaining the absence of sentencing information are likewise irrelevant is fallacious. Such instructions relieve the jury of any speculation about the sentencing procedure and allow the jury to concentrate on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Similar instructions have met with the approval of this court. Kalady, 462 N.E.2d 1299.