Opinion ID: 1855709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: Referring to the jury's penalty decision as a recommendation

Text: Defendant next contends the prosecutor attempted to lessen the jury's sense of responsibility for defendant's penalty by referring to their decision on defendant's sentence as a recommendation. Although the prosecutor (and defense counsel) did so refer to the jury's decision, it cannot seriously be contended that the jury did not understand the gravity of their duty and the finality of their decision, as this responsibility was impressed upon them several times. As early as voir dire, the prosecutor explicitly told the jury what would happen if they recommended a death sentence. For example, one voir dire panel was informed: Death in Louisiana is by lethal injection, that means that if the jury returns a verdict of death, that you should assume that some time in the future the defendant will be put to death by lethal injection, that means he will be secured or strapped to a gurney, which is a hospital-type bed, that hea needle will be placed in his arm and medical personnel or technicians will cause a solution of drugs to enter into his body which kills him dead. And I didn't mix [sic] any words when I told y'all that, did I? That's because I want you to understand that this is what the State is seeking, and you should assume that no matter what you've heard about the death penalty in Louisiana, no matter what you've heard about it in the United States, you should assume if you return a verdict of death, that at some future deathI mean, at some future date that this defendant will be put to death by lethal injection. Each panel was similarly informed that their recommendation was, in fact, binding. In addition to this graphic explanation of the consequences of a verdict of death, the trial judge informed the jury, prior to opening arguments in the penalty phase: After the close of evidence, you will be again instructed to by the court as to the law regarding this phase of the trial, and it will be your duty whether the sentence in this matter should be life in prison without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence or death. Further, the instructions given by the trial judge also instructed the jury as to their responsibility: Ladies and gentlemen, having found the accused guilty of first degree murder, you must now determine whether he should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.... In reaching your decision regarding the sentence to be imposed ... If you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance existed, you may consider imposing a sentence of death. However, the finding of an aggravating circumstance does not mean you must impose the sentence of death. It is your responsibility, in accordance with the principles of law I have instructed you, to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on each count. (Emph.added.) In light of these admonitions, we are certain that the jury was properly informed of the seriousness and finality of their decision as to the defendant's punishment. This assignment of error thus lacks merit as to defendant's contention that the prosecutor misled the jury as to the finality of their decision to impose the death sentence.