Opinion ID: 1244833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instruction on the Wood Test's Second Prong

Text: Defendant contends that the jury was not adequately instructed concerning its duty under the second prong of State v. Wood. [202] This prong requires the jury to determine that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the only appropriate penalty under all the circumstances. [203] The trial court gave two instruction concerning the Wood test. Instruction 6 stated the Wood standard. It told the jurors that they must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, both that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors and that death is the only appropriate penalty. Instruction 7 explained the weighing process the jury must employ in applying the Wood test. Defendant claims that instruction 7 blurs the distinction between the two prongs of the Wood test and encourages the jurors to apply only the first part of the test. State v. Wood established the requirement that a jury make two separate findings prior to imposing a sentence of death. [204] First, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances presented in the penalty phase outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Second, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt, after considering all aspects of the case, including the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented, that the imposition of the death penalty is justified and appropriate in the circumstances. [205] In State v. Holland, [206] we emphasized the importance of both prongs of the Wood test. We noted that employing the first prong alone could produce an unduly broad application of the death penalty and could result in a mere numerical counting of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in each case. [207] The second prong of the Wood test serves the important function of allowing the jurors to look at the totality of the case in light of their societal values and personal experiences. [208] It is well established that the trial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the facts of the case before it. [209] However, the language employed in Holland concerning the second prong of the Wood test need not be mechanically applied in every case. In determining whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury regarding the Wood test, we examine the totality of the instructions given to the jury to assess whether those instructions adequately conveyed the law applicable to the case. [210] Defendant primarily objects to the last paragraph of penalty phase instruction 7. [211] Though not a model of clarity, this paragraph correctly analyzes the process for weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the need for the jurors to assess those circumstances in the second portion of the Wood test. Further, instruction 7 was not the only instruction given concerning the prongs of the test. Instruction 6 clearly delineated both prongs of the Wood test and instructed the jury to carefully consider both steps in its deliberating process. [212] Also, the trial court gave instruction 8, which emphasized the need for finding beyond a reasonable doubt that both prongs of the test had been met. [213] Therefore, as a the instructions given adequately informed the jury of its duty and guided the jury in its deliberation as to each prong of the Wood test. Additionally, defendant argues that the instructions given should have informed the jury that it could consider any lingering doubts it had as to defendant's guilt. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in Franklin v. Lynaugh. [214] We agree with the Court's reasoning and holding in that decision and adopt it here. The penalty phase focuses on an assessment of the defendant's character after he has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [215] Defendant was not entitled to an instruction regarding lingering or residual doubts given to the jury during the penalty phase of his case.