Opinion ID: 4534203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sympathy and Mercy Instructions

Text: Bush’s second argument is twofold: (1) that he was deprived of a jury consideration of sympathy, and (2) the jury did not receive a mercy instruction. Neither argument has merit. During the final jury instructions, as provided in interim jury instruction 7.11(a), the jury was told: “Your decisions should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, racial or ethnic bias, or sympathy. Your decisions must be based on the evidence and law contained in these instructions.” See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 7.11(a) (2017). However, the instruction as amended in 2018 did not include the word “sympathy.” Bush argues that because his jury was instructed to not consider sympathy, he is entitled to relief. However, his argument that his jury was deprived of an opportunity to consider sympathy is without merit. As Bush concedes, defense - 63 - counsel was permitted to argue sympathy during the penalty phase closing arguments. Similarly, Bush’s argument that he was entitled to a jury instruction on mercy is also without merit. Before trial, defense counsel filed a written motion seeking a mercy instruction, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. The court entered a written order denying the motion, concluding that the standard jury instruction on nonstatutory mitigating circumstances was adequate. The trial court’s ruling is consistent with this Court’s precedent rejecting claims of entitlement to an instruction on mercy. See Downs v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 906, 913 (Fla. 2001) (rejecting Downs’ claim that he was entitled to a mercy instruction and stating that “[t]his Court has held that the ‘catch-all’ standard jury instruction on nonstatutory mitigation when coupled with counsel’s right to argue mitigation is sufficient to advise the jury on nonstatutory mitigating circumstances”).