Opinion ID: 1776993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the appellant was entitled to a mercy instruction in this case because the state had already granted mercy to a co-appellant, and it was reversible error for the lower court to refuse defense instruction d-y at the sentencing phase of the trial.

Text: Although Clemons concedes that this Court has not held that the refusal of a mercy instruction constitutes reversible error, he contends here that the denial of his requested mercy instruction constitutes reversible error. He cites no authority for this proposition. The following instruction was requested by Clemons but denied by the Court: Even if you find one, or more, aggravating circumstances, and you find that the aggravating circumstances, [sic] or circumstances, outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you may still conclude that the circumstances are insufficient to warrant the death penalty, and you may recommend mercy and sentence Chandler Clemons to life imprisonment. You are not required to find any mitigating circumstances in order to make a recommendation of mercy that is binding on the trial court. The lower court granted two instructions which, although not in the exact verbiage of the above instruction, presented the sense of the Clemons instruction to the jury. They follow: The Court instructs the Jury that even if you find there are no mitigating circumstances in this case which are worthy of your consideration, you may still sentence Chandler Clemons to life imprisonment. The Court instructs the Jury that you need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. In Nixon v. State, 533 So.2d 1078 (Miss. 1987), this Court addressed the exact question raised by Clemons here. The Court held that the second of the above instructions was effective as a mercy instruction. The Court stated: Was Nixon entitled to a mercy instruction? Conceding his argument has been previously rejected by this Court, Nixon contends he was entitled to a jury instruction informing the jury of its option to recommend a life sentence, even where the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Identical arguments were rejected by this Court in Wiley v. State, 484 So.2d 339 (Miss. 1986); Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss. 1985); Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332 (Miss. 1985); Jordan v. State, 464 So.2d 475 (Miss. 1985); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1985); Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427 (Miss. 1983). Nixon's complaint stems from the trial court's refusal of jury instruction D-13 which the trial judge held was redundant with instruction D-3. Jury instruction D-3 read, The Court instructs the jury that you need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. Clearly Nixon was in fact afforded a mercy instruction which gives Nixon no basis upon which to complain. 533 So.2d at 1100. The assigned Error (3) is denied.