Opinion ID: 1730477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: the trial court erred in refusing carr's jury instruction d-8, a mercy instruction.

Text: Carr contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant jury instruction D-8, a mercy instruction. The disputed instruction reads: Even if you find one, or more aggravating circumstances, and you find that the aggravating circumstance, or circumstances, outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you may still conclude that the circumstances are insufficient to warrant the death penalty, and you may recommend mercy and sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. You are not required to find any mitigating circumstances to make a recommendation of mercy that is binding on the trial court. The State points out that a mercy instruction, D-6, was in fact given. Defense instruction D-6 stated: The prosecution carries the burden of showing not only that aggravating circumstances exist, but also that they are sufficient to warrant the death penalty. If the prosecution merely proves the existence of an aggravating circumstance, you are free to find it insufficient to warrant death, and you are not required automatically to impose death. This Court has held that a so-called mercy instruction is not required at trial. Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171, 1181 (Miss. 1992); Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 761 (Miss. 1991); See also Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 150 (Miss. 1991) (our cases have consistently refused to hold that the Court is required to grant a mercy instruction. (citations omitted)). The jury was adequately instructed that before it could sentence Carr to death, it had to weigh mitigating circumstances against aggravating circumstances, and, only if the latter outweighed the former, could it return a sentence of death. See Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1317, 1338 (Miss. 1987). There is no merit to this assignment of error.