Opinion ID: 1101139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: HAC Standard Jury Instruction

Text: As his last penalty phase issue, Chandler argues that the standard jury instruction on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague. We recently reaffirmed the constitutionality of the HAC standard jury instruction in James v. State, 695 So.2d 1229, 1235 (Fla.), petition for cert. filed, No. 97-6104 (U.S. Sept. 18, 1997). In James, we rejected the appellant's vagueness and overbreadth challenges since the HAC instruction given at trial was the same instruction approved in Hall v. State, 614 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993), wherein this Court found that neither the instruction nor the aggravator itself was unconstitutionally vague. James, 695 So.2d at 1235; Hartley v. State, 686 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 86, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1997). Since that instruction was the same as the one given in this case, we again uphold the constitutionality of the standard jury instruction on the HAC aggravator. James; Hartley.