Opinion ID: 867431
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The A Doubt Instruction

Text: ¶ 22 Defendant had urged below the propriety of an instruction that the jury should return a verdict of life if the jurors had a doubt whether death was the appropriate sentence. This instruction in effect tells the jury that the State must prove beyond any doubt, reasonable or not, that death is the appropriate sentence in a given case. ¶ 23 The instruction stemmed from language this court used when fulfilling its duty to independently review death sentences. See, e.g., State v. Carlson, 202 Ariz. 570, 588, ¶ 70, 48 P.3d 1180, 1198 (2002); State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 23, 951 P.2d 869, 888 (1997); State v. Valencia, 132 Ariz. 248, 250, 645 P.2d 239, 241 (1982). Defendant now concedes that this language was never intended as an instruction for jurors. The concession is well taken, for in Glassel, 211 Ariz. at 52, ¶¶ 69-70, 116 P.3d at 1212, we rejected the argument that the Constitution requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that leniency was not justified. If the State need not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate sentence, it then certainly need not prove that point beyond any doubt whatsoever. To put this matter to rest, we hold that such an instruction is improper.