Opinion ID: 2085778
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Insufficient Evidence of Statutory Aggravator for the Death Penalty

Text: Following the defendant's conviction for murder and felony murder, the penalty phase began and the State advised the trial court that it intended to rest without offering any new evidence, informing the jury that: The court instructed you that you can consider all of the evidence in the sentencing phase. All the evidence that came in during the trial phase. The State will not submit any evidence in the penalty phase. We are going to rely upon all of the evidence that you have already received in making your determination as to whether or not the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt one of those aggravating factors when this case is concluded. Record at 5700. The defendant does not contend that, considering the totality of evidence in the guilt phase, the evidence of aggravating circumstances was insufficient. Rather, the defendant contends only that, because the State failed to offer any evidence of a statutory aggravating circumstance at the penalty phase, it failed to prove the existence of an aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt as required by Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-9(a). The State responds by arguing that, although a motion to incorporate the evidence presented at the guilt phase has become routine in capital cases, there is no authority requiring such incorporation. Brief of Appellee at 14. Indiana's death sentencing statute provides, in pertinent part: If the defendant was convicted of murder in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene for the sentencing hearing.... The jury or the court may consider all the evidence introduced at the trial stage of the proceedings, together with new evidence presented at the sentencing. IND.CODE § 35-50-2-9(d) (1993) (emphasis added). The jury in the penalty phase was the same jury which had just completed the guilt phase, convicting the defendant of two counts of murder and two counts of felony murder. The statute expressly allows the jury to consider all the evidence introduced at the guilt phase, and the State specifically asked the jury to do so. The defendant presents no authority requiring the State to move to incorporate the guilt phase evidence at the penalty phase. We find no error on this issue.