Opinion ID: 1936097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in instructing the jury to consider the underlying felony as an aggravating circumstance

Text: Jackson next asserts that the inclusion of the aggravating circumstance that he was engaged in commission of the crime of felonious abuse and/or battery of a child at the time of the murders in Counts 1 through 4 of Sentencing Instruction S-1 duplicates an element of the offense for which he was charged, thus violating the eighth amendment because of its failure to narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. Jackson made no contemporaneous objection to the instruction on this ground. Notwithstanding Jackson's failure properly to preserve the issue for appellate review, Russell v. State, 607 So.2d 1107, 1117 (Miss. 1992), there is no merit to his argument. The United States Supreme Court has held that as long as the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty is narrowed during the guilt or sentencing phase of the trial, the fact that the aggravating circumstance duplicated one of the elements of the crime does not make this sentence constitutionally infirm. Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 246, 108 S.Ct. 546, 555, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988). In Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1991), this Court, again rejecting the contention that aggravating factors could not be stacked, reiterated Lowenfield, stating: The United States Supreme Court held that when constitutionally required narrowing of the class of persons eligible for the death penalty is accomplished by the legislative definition of capital offenses in the guilt phase (as is done in Louisiana and Mississippi), the jury's further narrowing of the sentencing phase is not constitutionally required. [ Lowenfield, 484 U.S.] at 241-46, 108 S.Ct. at 552-55, 98 L.Ed.2d at 579-83. Accordingly, there was no error in allowing the jury to consider the underlying felony as an aggravating factor.