Opinion ID: 610843
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Three Stages of Due Process Scrutiny

Text: 53 The Supreme Court did not find that the elements of the Alabama system were necessary to comport with due process, but merely sufficient. 12 Although we adopt a three-stage approach similar to Alabama's, we need not look solely to the substance of its Hammond factors. Instead, we note that the general concerns of reasonableness and adequate guidance from the court when the case is tried to a jury properly enter into the constitutional calculus. Haslip, 499 U.S. at 15, 111 S.Ct. at 1043. 1. Jury Instructions by the Trial Court 54 As the first stage of scrutiny, a trial court should instruct the jury on the proper role of punitive damages. Haslip said that instructions should be fashioned to describe the proper purposes of punitive damages, so that the jury understands that punitive damages are not to compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant and to deter the defendant and others from such conduct in the future. Id. at 16, 111 S.Ct. at 1044. In the case before us, the trial court performed this task by use of an instruction that focused upon the discretionary nature of the award, the need to punish the defendant, and the need to deter repetition of such conduct. Specifically, the instruction focused on (1) the reprehensibility of the conduct of the defendant, and (2) the amount of punitive damages which will have a deterrent effect on the defendant in light of the defendant's financial condition. 13 Although the court could have included instructions detailing that punitive damages are not to be used to compensate the plaintiff, the instructions on compensatory damages made this clear. The instructions in this case were adequate. 55