Opinion ID: 1667377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Failure to define mitigating circumstances

Text: In his closing argument on the sentencing phase of the trial, Mr. Bowen's counsel presented a dictionary definition of the term mitigating to the jury. He emphasized that the term meant extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability as opposed to justification. He now contends the Trial Court should have defined the term mitigating circumstances for the jury. We assume jurors to be persons of sufficient intelligence to understand the meaning of ordinary language. See Hamilton v. Hamilton, 178 Ark. 241, 10 S.W.2d 377 (1928). Even if the term mitigating circumstances required further definition we would not be able to find prejudice here in view of counsel's correct and unchallenged presentation of the definition to the jury.