Opinion ID: 752499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: jury unanimity on the existence of mitigating circumstances

Text: 156 In his seventh claim, Mr. Duvall asserts that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the jury instructions did not inform the jury that unanimous agreement upon the existence of a mitigating circumstance is not required before each juror can consider such evidence. Relying primarily on McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990), and Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), Mr. Duvall contends that the jury instructions erroneously implied that the jury was required to find a mitigating circumstance unanimously before each juror could consider the mitigating circumstance in determining whether to impose the death penalty. 157 In McKoy and Mills, the Supreme Court held that a unanimity requirement concerning mitigating circumstances resulted in an unconstitutional death sentence. McKoy, 494 U.S. at 444, 110 S.Ct. at 1234; Mills, 486 U.S. at 375, 108 S.Ct. at 1865-66. In both cases, the Court reasoned that allowing a holdout juror to prevent the other jurors from considering mitigating evidence violated the principle established in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), i.e., that a sentencer may not be precluded from giving effect to all mitigating evidence. McKoy, 494 U.S. at 438, 110 S.Ct. at 1231; Mills, 486 U.S. at 375, 108 S.Ct. at 1865-66. 158 A trial court need not, however, expressly instruct a capital sentencing jury that unanimity is not required before each juror can consider a particular mitigating circumstance. See Buchanan v. Angelone, --- U.S. ----, ----, 118 S.Ct. 757, 761, 139 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998) ([T]he State may shape and structure the jury's consideration of mitigation so long as it does not preclude the jury from giving effect to any relevant mitigating evidence.). Instead, as noted above, our standard for determining whether jury instructions violate the constitution is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 1198, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), quoted in Buchanan, --- U.S. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 761; accord Davis v. Executive Dir. of Dept. of Corrections, 100 F.3d 750, 775 (1996) (10th Cir.1996). 9 159 In pertinent part, the trial court in this case gave the following instructions relevant to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances: Instruction No. 6 160 Should you unanimously find that one or more aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be authorized to consider imposing a sentence of death. 161 If you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed, you are prohibited from considering the Death Penalty. In that event, the sentence must be Imprisonment for Life. Instruction No. 7 162 Mitigating circumstances are those which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability or blame. The determination of what are mitigating circumstances is for you as Jurors to resolve under the facts and circumstances of this case. Instruction No. 8 163 Evidence has been offered as to the following mitigating circumstances: 164 [list] 165 Whether these circumstances existed, and whether these circumstances are mitigating, must be decided by you. Instruction No. 9 166 If you unanimously find that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, unless you also unanimously find that any such aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh the finding of one or more mitigating circumstances, the Death Penalty shall not be imposed. Instruction No. 10 167 If you unanimously find that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, the Law requires that you reduce such findings to writing by stating specifically what aggravating circumstances existed, if any. This finding must be made a part of your Verdict. 168 You must indicate this finding by checking the box next to such aggravating circumstances on the appropriate Verdict form furnished you, and such Verdict form must be signed by your Foreman. 169 The Law does not require you to reduce to writing the mitigating circumstances you find, if any. 170 R. at 174-78 (emphasis added). 171 The instructions consistently require unanimity only on the jury's finding of aggravating circumstances. Instruction Nos. 6 and 10 require the jury to unanimously find aggravating circumstances. In contrast, none of the instructions involving mitigating circumstances impose an express or implied unanimity requirement on the jury's consideration of mitigating evidence. Instruction Nos. 7, 8, and 10 respectively required the jury to determin[e], decide[ ], and find whether mitigating circumstances existed without any reference to unanimity. Although Instruction No. 9 requires the jury to find unanimously that the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty, the unanimity requirement there refers only to the jury's balancing of aggravating versus mitigating circumstances, and not to the initial determination of whether mitigating circumstances exist in the first place. Thus, Instruction No. 9 is consistent with the instructions describing the proper evaluation of mitigating evidence. 172 We hold that there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury applied these instructions in a way that required them to agree unanimously upon the existence of a mitigating circumstance before considering it. Thus, Mr. Duvall is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground. 173