Opinion ID: 1528698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: AMCI Form 2

Text: Dansby argues that the court erred in denying his request to submit his version of Form Two of the Arkansas Model Jury Instructions: Criminal (2d ed.) on mitigating circumstances, which added sixteen possible mitigating factors. Since the jury recommended the penalty of death by lethal injection on each charge, we consider it appropriate to give a full recital of both Dansby's proffered instruction on mitigating circumstances, and Form Two of the AMCI which was utilized by the trial court in its instruction to the jury. Dansby's offered form reads as follows: A. () We unanimously find that the following mitigating circumstances probably existed at the time of the murder: (Check applicable circumstances and specify any additional ones.) 1. () Ray Dansby turned himself in to the police and did not try to hide from or flee from police. 2. () Ray Dansby cooperated with the police by giving a statement and telling them what had happened. 3. () Ray Dansby had a good work history at El Dorado Paper Bag. 4. () Ray Dansby has a lot of family support. 5. () Ray Dansby was well liked and respected in his community. 6. () Outside of his relationship with Brenda Dansby, Ray Dansby has had no involvement with the law. 7. () Outside of problems in his relationship with Brenda Dansby, Ray Dansby has been law abiding. 8. () Ray Dansby has always been a quiet person and has kept to himself. 9. () Ray Dansby has demonstrated his ability to adjust and contribute while incarcerated. 10. () While the relationship between Ray and Brenda Dansby was tumultuous, Ray Dansby was not the only person responsible. 11. () Ray and Brenda's relationship could be characterized as on again/off again. 12. () Ray Dansby loved Brenda Dansby. 13. () Although the homicide was not justified, the evidence indicates that the homicidal act occurred during an argument or fight. 14. () From the evidence, it is clear that the victims in this case had loaded weapons. 15. () From the evidence, it is clear that the victims intended to and in fact, did use their weapons. 16. () Other: Specify in writing. ______________________________________ ______________________________________. B. () One or more members of the jury believed that the following mitigating circumstances probably existed, but the jury did not unanimously agree. [repeat same sixteen factors] C. () There was evidence of the following mitigating factors, but the jury unanimously agreed that they did not exist at the time of the murder. [repeat same sixteen factors] D. () There was no other evidence of any mitigating circumstances. (Check if applicable.) The standard version of Form 2 submitted to the jury reads as follows: A. () We unanimously find that the following mitigating circumstances probably existed at the time of the murder: () The capital murder of Brenda Dansby was committed while Ray Dansby was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance. () The capital murder of Brenda Dansby was committed while Ray Dansby was acting under unusual pressures or influences or under the domination of another person. () The capital murder of Brenda Dansby was committed while the capacity of Ray Dansby to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, intoxication, or drug abuse. () The youth of Ray Dansby at the time of the commission of the capital murder of Brenda Dansby. () The capital murder of Brenda Dansby was committed by another person and Ray Dansby was an accomplice and his participation relatively minor. () Ray Dansby has no significant history of prior criminal activity. () Other specify in writing: ___________ _____________________________________________. B. () One or more of the members of the jury believed that the following mitigating circumstances probably existed, but the jury did not unanimously agree: [repeat same factors] C. () There was evidence of the following mitigating factors, but the jury unanimously agreed that they did not exist at the time of the murder: [repeat same factors] D. () There was no evidence of any mitigating circumstance. Relying on our decision in Sheridan v. State, supra , the trial judge offered the following explanation: If you find unanimously that one or more aggravating circumstances exist, you should then complete Form 2, which deals with mitigating circumstances. However, you are not limited to this list. You may, in your discretion, find other mitigating circumstances. This explanation is verbatim that which was offered in Sheridan v. State, supra , to which we responded as follows: in support of his argument, Sheridan cites Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 [109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256] (1989). In Penry , the United States Supreme Court found that a criminal defendant's Eighth Amendment prohibition upon the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is violated when he is sentenced to death and no instructions were given informing the jury that it could consider and give effect to mitigating evidence of the defendant's mental retardation and former abuse received. The United States Supreme Court has held that it is a mandatory safeguard of the Eighth Amendment for the sentencing body to be allowed to consider any mitigating factor that is relevant to the particular offender's case. California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 [107 S.Ct. 837, 93 L.Ed.2d 934] (1987); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633 [97 S.Ct. 1993, 52 L.Ed.2d 637] (1977); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, [96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859] (1976). The defense must be allowed during the sentencing phase to introduce any relevant mitigating evidence the defense proffers concerning the character or history of the offender or the circumstances of the offense. California v. Brown, supra. Not only must relevant mitigating evidence be admitted, it must actually be considered, which in appropriate cases means specifically instructing the jury to do so. Penry v. Lynaugh, supra ; Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 [102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1] (1982). In other words, any death sentence that results from a deliberate exclusion of any relevant mitigating evidence is presumptively invalid. Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 [107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347] (1987). Applying these U.S. Supreme Court rules to the instant case, it is clear to us that the jury was not limited to the mitigating factors listed on Form 2 but was invited by the judge to consider any others they saw fit and to write them in the blank spaces provided in each category. Therefore, the submission of Form 2 to the jury instead of the form proffered by Sheridan did not act as an impermissible exclusion of relevant mitigating factors. The court specifically told the jurors that the mitigating factors listed were not the sole ones to be considered and that they could consider other factors. Sheridan v. State, supra, at 37-8, 852 S.W.2d at 779.