Opinion ID: 1704856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: refusal to give a special instruction regarding mitigating circumstances

Text: Booker also asserts the trial court erred in denying defense counsel's request to give the following special instruction regarding mitigating circumstances: Mitigating circumstance are circumstances that do not constitute a justification or excuse for the offense in question, but which in fairness and mercy may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability. We find Booker's claim to be without merit. During the trial below, the court gave the following instruction to the jury regarding mitigating circumstances: Should you find sufficient aggravating circumstances do exist, it will then be your duty to determine whether mitigating circumstances exist that outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Among theamong the mitigating circumstances you may consider, if established by the evidence, are: One, the crime for which Stephen Todd Booker is to be sentenced was committed while he was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Two, the capacity of Stephen Todd Booker to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired. Three, any of the following circumstances that would mitigate against the imposition of the death penalty: A. Any other aspect of the defendant's character, record, or background. B. Any other circumstance of the offense. This instruction correctly tracks the standard jury instruction regarding mitigating circumstances, see Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 112; see also Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases No. 96-1, 690 So.2d 1263, 1267 (Fla.1997), and we have repeatedly held that clarifying instructions on mitigating circumstances are not required. See, e.g., Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340, 1346 (Fla.1997) (finding trial court did not err in refusing to give special jury instruction addressing nature and functioning of mitigating circumstances where the trial court instructed jury with standard instruction on mitigating circumstances), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 944, 119 S.Ct. 366, 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998); Shellito v. State, 701 So.2d 837, 842 (Fla. 1997) (This Court has repeatedly determined that the requested clarifying instructions on mitigating evidence are not required.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1084, 118 S.Ct. 1537, 140 L.Ed.2d 686 (1998). Accordingly, based on our prior decisions, we find Booker's claim here to be without merit.