Opinion ID: 2534434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Requirement of jury unanimity for leniency

Text: ¶ 98 Anderson claims that the penalty phase jury instructions, by requiring jury unanimity for a conclusion that mitigating circumstances were sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, violated the rule of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). Mills found unconstitutional the use of jury instructions that risked giving the impression that jurors should not consider mitigating factors not found unanimously, because such an instruction wrongly precluded the jury from considering relevant mitigation. Id. at 384, 108 S.Ct. 1860. ¶ 99 The instructions here complied with Mills. They stated that while the jury must be unanimous as to the appropriate sentence, each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance found by that juror in determining the appropriate penalty. The jurors thus were not told that they must unanimously agree on the existence of any particular mitigating circumstance in order to recommend a life sentence.