Opinion ID: 1860995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to Give Special Penalty Phase Jury Instructions

Text: Darling's argument that he was entitled to requested special penalty phase jury instructions (including an instruction on circumstantial evidence, a modification of the standard instruction on aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, and an instruction regarding victim impact evidence) also lacks merit. The record in this case does not support the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give the requested instruction on circumstantial evidence. See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla.1981) (observing that [t]he elimination of the current standard instruction on circumstantial evidence does not totally prohibit such an instruction if a trial judge, in his or her discretion, feels that such is necessary under the peculiar facts of a specific case, but that the giving of proposed instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof ... renders an instruction on circumstantial evidence unnecessary). Additionally, we have repeatedly held that further clarifying instructions regarding mitigating circumstances are not required. See, e.g., Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1090 (Fla.2000) (observing that the Court has repeatedly held that clarifying instructions on mitigating circumstances are not required); Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340, 1346 (Fla.1997) (finding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give a special jury instruction addressing the nature and functioning of mitigating circumstances where the trial court had given the standard instruction on mitigating circumstances), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 944, 119 S.Ct. 366, 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998); Shellito v. State, 701 So.2d 837, 842 (Fla.1997) (This Court has repeatedly determined that the requested clarifying instructions on mitigating evidence are not required.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1084, 118 S.Ct. 1537, 140 L.Ed.2d 686 (1998). Lastly, the instruction given by the trial court here regarding victim impact evidence comported with the law as set out in Windom v. State, 656 So.2d 432, 438 (Fla.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1012, 116 S.Ct. 571, 133 L.Ed.2d 495 (1995), and Bonifay v. State, 680 So.2d 413 (Fla.1996).