Opinion ID: 1690126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court's limiting instructions, both individually and in combination were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad?

Text: ś 36. Jordan submits that Instruction No. 1, when considered in combination with No. 2, was vague and that no reasonable juror could have comprehended meaningful limitations in the instructions. Instruction No. 2 provided: In considering whether the capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, you are instructed that heinous means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; atrocious means outrageously wicked and vile; and cruel means designed to inflict a high degree of pain with indifference to, or even enjoyment of, the suffering of others. An especially heinous, atrocious or cruel capital offense is one accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of capital murdersâ the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily tortuous to the victim. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Jordan utilized a method of killing that inflicted physical or mental pain upon Edwina Marter before her death, that there was mental torture and aggravation before death, then you may find this aggravating circumstance exist. ś 37. Jordan argues that Instructions No. 1 and No. 2 are conflicting, since No. 1 instructs the jury that it can find that the crime was especially heinous since Edwina Marter was murdered in execution style, while No. 2 instructs that the crime had to be unnecessarily tortuous, and that the victim suffered mental or physical pain. Specifically, Jordan asserts that a shooting which occurred in execution style (i.e., in the back of the head) is the least tortuous method of killing, and, therefore, he contends that Instructions No. 1 and No. 2 are conflicting. ś 38. Instruction No. 1 does state that the jury could find that the crime was especially heinous because Edwina was murdered in execution style, but it goes on to say,  and that she was subjected to extreme mental torture caused by her abduction from the home wherein she was forced to abandon her unattended three year old child and removed to a wooded area at which time she was shot in the back of the head by Jordan. Today we will not decide whether a straightforward execution style killing, without more, constitutes heinous atrocious or cruel, but we do find that the execution style killing, in addition to the circumstances listed above, did constitute heinous, atrocious or cruel. ś 39. We have approved of Instruction No. 2 as a proper limiting instruction concerning the especially heinous aggravator. See, e.g., Edwards v. State, 737 So.2d 275, 315 (Miss.1999); Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322, 359-61 (Miss.1999). Therefore, Jordan's claim is without merit.