Opinion ID: 2081007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Advising the Jury on Their Role in Sentencing

Text: Conner argues that the denial of his motion in limine seeking to prevent the prosecutor from arguing to the jury that their sentencing recommendation was advisory and that the final sentencing decision lay with the trial court was prejudicial to him. The argument that the jury should not be told of their advisory function because to do so does not inform the jury of the standard for an override of a non-death recommendation is without merit. In the present case neither the court nor the prosecutor during voir dire, argument, or instructions violated the rule set forth by us in Wallace v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 456, 467-70, cert. denied (1991), ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2250, 114 L.Ed.2d 491. None of the information imparted to the jury told the jury that they were relieved of concern because the ultimate responsibility rested with the judge or this Court. In reviewing the record, it appears to us that the jury was properly instructed on their sentencing role under our statute and that no error resulted from the trial court's denial of Conner's motion in limine on this issue.