Opinion ID: 1868654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Finding of Aggravators Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Text: It is true that the written verdict of the jury does not specifically state that it found the three aggravating circumstances unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. While there is a statutory requirement that the jury find the existence of each aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no authority for the proposition that the jury must actually write the words beyond a reasonable doubt in its verdict. Miss. Code Ann. ง 99-19-103 states in pertinent part: The jury, if its verdict be a unanimous recommendation of death, shall designate in writing, signed by the foreman of the jury, the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances which it unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon reading the statute in a creative manner, one can see the technical path which Williams took to arrive at the conclusion that the words beyond a reasonable doubt must be written adjacent to the aggravators. However, this interpretation would not prevail in an English teacher's classroom, nor will it prevail at this Court. Instruction S-2 instructed the jury, in plain English, that [y]ou must unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the preceding aggravating circumstances exists in this case to return the death penalty. The same instruction later instructed the jury as to the possible form(s) of the verdict. One of the forms stated: Next, we the Jury, unanimously find that the aggravating circumstance(s) of: (List or itemize all of aggravating circumstance(s) presented in section B of this instruction which you unanimously agree exist in this case beyond a reasonable doubt. ) (emphasis added). This Court has held on numerous occasions that when a trial court instructs the jury, it is presumed the jurors follow the instructions of the court. See Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131 (Miss. 1988); McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss. 1987); Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136 (Miss. 1985). Stated differently, courts assume that juries follow the instructions. Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136, 1141 (Miss. 1985). Our law presumes the jury does as it is told. Williams v. State, 512 So.2d 666, 671 (Miss. 1987) (citations omitted). To presume otherwise would be to render the jury system inoperable. Johnson, 475 So.2d at 1142. This Court must presume the jury did as it was instructed to do and that it found the existence of each of the three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court agrees with the analogy made by the State concerning jury verdicts in cases less than capital. In such cases, the jury is instructed in writing they must find the defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The usual written verdict, however, reads as follows: We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged. There is no statutory or constitutional requirement for the jury to include in its verdict the words beyond a reasonable doubt. Williams' reliance upon Pinkton v. State, 481 So.2d 306 (Miss. 1985), is misplaced. In Pinkton there was a total absence of a written finding of the intent factors required by Miss. Code Ann. ง 99-19-101(7). The statute clearly stated that the jury must make a written finding that one or more of these circumstances existed before imposing the death sentence. No such finding was made. Pinkton is not viable authority for the beyond a reasonable doubt argument presented here. When all of the jury instructions given by the court are read in harmony with the written verdict returned by the jury, it is clear the verdict of the jury resentencing Williams to death complies with the requirements of Miss. Code Ann. ง 99-19-101 and Miss. Code Ann. ง 99-19-103.