Opinion ID: 1913318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 44

Heading: did the jurors find any aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt?

Text: ¶ 200. Holland objects to the form of the verdict in this question, which did not state the aggravators were found beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he did not object to the form of this verdict at trial, Sentencing Instruction S-1, thus barring appeal on that issue. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 330, 102 L.Ed.2d 348 (1988), reh'g denied, 488 U.S. 1023, 109 S.Ct. 826, 102 L.Ed.2d 815 (1989). Holland raised the issue for the first time in the motion for new trial; thus, the objection comes too late. The verdict form was included in Instruction S-1, to which Holland, at the time, made no objection. Any objection should have been made when the instructions were being considered. Chase, supra ; Foster, supra ; Cole, supra . Acevedo v. State does not help Holland, since it discusses the specificity of an objection being no bar, not the lack of any objection whatsoever. Acevedo v. State, 467 So.2d 220, 223-24 (Miss. 1985). ¶ 201. Procedural bar notwithstanding, alternatively, considering the issue on the merits, there are none. The failure of the verdict form to contain the words beyond a reasonable doubt is not fatal. The jury was told that they had to find aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict form contained a bracketed statement that the jury was to list only those aggravating circumstances that they found beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, under no scenario can Holland claim that this jury did not find the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict of the jury is sufficient if it simply states that the jury finds the defendant guilty of capital murder. This claim is barred for failure to object and is, alternatively, wholly without merit.