Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Definition of Aggravating Circumstances

Text: During individual voir dire, the trial court gave the following definition of aggravating circumstances to each prospective juror: Aggravating evidence is evidence about a person's character, background or circumstance that may be considered as a reason for imposing a more severe punishment than might otherwise be imposed. Though no contemporaneous objection was made, Appellant now argues that this definition is a misstatement of the law and that it impaired the jury's ability to consider his mitigating evidence. The trial court's definition of aggravating circumstances is, at best, nebulous. The statutory aggravating factors enumerated in KRS 532.025(2)(a) relate to the defendant's prior criminal history, the status of the victim, and the circumstances of the crime. The trial court's definition, instead, gave the erroneous impression that evidence of Appellant's character, his general background, and his personal circumstances would be considered as aggravating circumstances. We have recognized that a trial court may consider nonstatutory aggravating circumstances that, under certain circumstances, might be characterized as evidence about the defendant's character, background or circumstance. However, in this case, the jury was instructed solely on the aggravating circumstance found at KRS 532.025(2)(a)(2): [t]he offense of murder or kidnapping was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of ... burglary in the first degree. Further, we find no indication that Appellant was prejudiced by the trial court's definition of aggravating circumstances. The jury unanimously found that Appellant had murdered Bess Horton during the commission of a burglary. This finding was supported by substantial evidence, including the significant fact that Appellant was arrested in Horton's home with her valuables in his pockets. For this reason, we do not believe that the jury would have recommended a lesser punishment had the trial court provided a more accurate definition of aggravating circumstances during individual voir dire. Furthermore, we find no grounds for concluding that the jury's ability to consider Appellant's mitigating evidence would have been impaired by this error. Accordingly, reversal is not warranted. See Johnson, 103 S.W.3d at 691.