Opinion ID: 1735417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proposed Sentencing Phase Instructions DS-1 and DS-2.

Text: ś 197. Walker argues that the trial court erred in refusing instructions DS-1 and DS-2, which Walker alleges accurately state the law.
ś 198. Proposed Sentencing Phase Instruction DS-1 read as follows: The fact that Derrick Demond Walker has been convicted of capital murder is not in itself an aggravating circumstance and may not be considered by you when deciding to impose a death sentence. The fact of conviction of capital murder does not justify imposition of the death sentence. ś 199. The aggravating circumstances are listed in C-17, which instructs the jury to [c]onsider only the following elements of aggravation in determining whether the death penalty should be imposed. (Emphasis added). Walker's conviction for capital murder is not listed as being one of the only aggravators the jury was instructed to consider in deciding whether the death penalty should be imposed. Consequently, the jury was properly instructed that the murder itself was not an aggravator, and as such, there was no requirement to separately instruct the jury. Jury instructions are to read as a whole. Thomas, 818 So.2d at 349. DS-1 was cumulative as the jury was already properly instructed on the aggravating factors it could consider. It is not error to refuse a repetitious instruction. Edwards, 737 So.2d at 317; Walker, 671 So.2d at 613; Griffin, 494 So.2d 376, 381 (Miss. 1986). ś 200. Additionally, the use of the word justify is confusing and inappropriate. Had it not been cumulative, it would have been error to submit this instruction to the jury, if justify was utilized, as opposed to compel, obligate, require or similar words.
ś 201. Proposed Sentencing Phase Instruction DS-2 read as follows: You are instructed that you need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or early release. Moreover, even if you find that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh one or more of the aggravating circumstances, you can impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole or early release. ś 202. This Court has previously rejected the same instruction. In Edwards, this Court reviewed a verbatim instruction proposed by the defendant. 737 So.2d at 317. Finding that the proposed instruction was a mercy instruction, this Court rejected Edwards' claim that he was entitled to such instruction. Id. Following our prior ruling in Edwards, we find the exact same instruction Walker proposed here to be a mercy instruction, which he is not allowed. See Doss v. State, 709 So.2d 369, 394 (Miss.1996) (quoting Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 761 (Miss.1991)) (This Court has explicitly held that a `defendant has no right to a mercy instruction.'). Therefore, the instruction was properly refused. ś 203. In each of the subsections listed in this issue, we find that there is no error. A review of the given sentencing instructions, reveals that the jury was properly instructed. Therefore, Walker's assignment of error is without merit.