Opinion ID: 1824119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sentencing instructions ssp-4b and ssp-5.

Text: ¶ 24. On appeal Randle challenges two sentencing instructions, SSP-4B and SSP-5, given to the jury by the trial court. Randle's counsel specifically stated that they had no objection to these two instructions during trial. Thus, Randle waived any right to complain about these instructions on appeal. This Court, however, will review the instructions complained of in order to fully consider all issues on appeal. The two instructions complained of were both given during the sentencing phase of the trial. Instruction SSP-4B reads as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that you have found the defendant guilty as charged of Capital Murder. You must now decide whether the defendant will be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment. In reaching this decision, you must objectively consider the detailed circumstances of the crime for which the defendant was convicted, as well as the defendant himself. Your deliberations should be taken in three steps, and they are listed as follows: 1. You must first unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to return and impose a sentence of death, that one or more of the following conditions exist: a. The defendant actually killed; b. The defendant attempted to kill; c. The defendant intended that a killing take place; d. The defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed; If you unanimously find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of these conditions exist, then you must proceed to weigh the mitigating circumstances against the aggravating circumstances. 2. To return and impose a sentence of death, you must unanimously find from the evidence that the mitigating circumstances, those which tend to justify the less severe penalty of life in prison, do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, those which tend to justify the death penalty. If you unanimously find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that any one or more of the following aggravating circumstances exist: a. The Capital Murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of the crime of Robbery; b. The Capital Murder was especially heinous, atrocious and cruel; c. The Capital Murder was committed for the purpose of preventing or avoiding a lawful arrest; d. The Capital Murder was committed by a person under a sentence of imprisonment; Then you must proceed to weigh against these aggravating circumstances, the following mitigating circumstances: a. Whether the crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances; b. The age of the defendant at the time of the crime; c. Any other circumstances which you deem mitigating; If, after weighing the mitigating circumstances and the aggravating circumstances, the defendant has failed to prove that the mitigating outweighs the aggravating; and you further unanimously find from the evidence that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and that the death penalty should be imposed, your verdict should be returned on a separate sheet of paper. [The remainder of the instruction is the verdict form] Randle argues that this instruction is vague and that it likely confused the jurors on how to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances. ¶ 25. Instruction SSP-5 reads as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that the term especially heinous, atrocious and cruel as used in these instructions is defined as being a conscienceless and pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim. Randle argues that, by following SSP-4B, this instruction improperly highlights the heinous, atrocious and cruel aggravating circumstance. He further argues that the approved form of this instruction reads conscienceless, pitiless crime, and that wording conscienceless and pitiless crime in the instruction given below amounts to reversible error. ¶ 26. In reviewing these instructions, it must first be noted that Randle was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Under Miss.Code Ann. §§ 97-3-21, 47-7-3 and XX-XX-XXX, the only options available for sentencing were death or life without the possibility of parole. See also Pham v. State, 716 So.2d 1100, 1103-04 (Miss.1998). With this fact in mind, beyond the procedural bar, there is an additional bar to this allegation of error: Randle was not prejudiced by the granting of these instructions because he got the best possible sentence. This Court has previously found that one convicted of manslaughter under a murder indictment cannot complain of the giving of a murder instruction. Crump v. State, 375 So.2d 225, 227 (Miss.1979) (citing Hailes v. State, 315 So.2d 917 (Miss.1975)). This reasoning is applicable to the case sub judice. Randle's other sentencing option was the death penalty. Thus, these instructions did not harm him. ¶ 27. As to the merit of Randle's claims, this Court finds none. First, Instruction SSP-4B is not vague. It sets out the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances and clearly explains to the jurors that they must weigh one set against the other and what sentence is necessitated by the results of their weighing process. Second, the Supreme Court of the United States has been held that the heinous, atrocious and cruel aggravating factor must be further defined in order to pass constitutional muster. Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990). Further, this Court has expressly approved the following language: An especially heinous, atrocious or cruel capital offense is one accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of capital murdersthe conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant utilized a method of killing which caused serious mutilation, that there was dismemberment of the body prior to death, that the defendant inflicted physical or mental pain before death, that there was mental torture and aggravation before death, or that a lingering or torturous death was suffered by the victim, then you may find this aggravating circumstance. Knox v. State, 805 So.2d 527, 533 (Miss. 2002). While the language of SSP-5 is not identical to this language, we find that it is sufficient. ¶ 28. We find that Randle is procedurally barred from pursuing these allegations of error on appeal, and we further note that they are without merit.