Opinion ID: 1262796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refused Instruction and Verdict Form

Text: Stewart complains that the instructions and the verdict form inadequately instruct and inform the jury concerning mitigation. He concludes that they inhibit the jury's consideration of evidence of mitigation. The court instructed the jury that even if the Commonwealth proved the vileness and future dangerousness predicates of the capital murder statute beyond a reasonable doubt, if [the jury believed] from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, it could fix the punishment at imprisonment for life. The court also told the jury that mitigating factors are those circumstances which do not justify or excuse the offense, but which in fairness or mercy may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability and punishment. Contending that these instructions were inadequate to instruct on mitigating factors, Stewart tendered Instruction B, which provided in pertinent part: THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT if you find that the Commonwealth has proven any one or more aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt you may, after considering the defendant's evidence raised in mitigation, impose a sentence of Life in the penitentiary. Stewart also argues that Instruction B should have been granted because it would give the juror a clear statement of the law and help overcome the shortcomings of the jury verdict form which was submitted. We do not agree. In our opinion, the court fully instructed the jury on the issue of mitigation and did not err in refusing to grant an essentially duplicative instruction on the subject. Eaton, 240 Va. at 257, 397 S.E.2d at 398. The trial court submitted to the jury the verdict form prescribed by Code § 19.2-264.4(D). Stewart contends the form under-informs and inhibits the consideration of mitigation in the manner required by law. However, we rejected substantially the same contention in Stockton v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 192, 215, 402 S.E.2d 196, 209, cert. denied, 502 U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 280, 116 L.Ed.2d 231 (1991). Perceiving no reason to depart from our decision in Stockton, we reject Stewart's contention here.