Opinion ID: 2110800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Residual Doubt and Mercy Instructions

Text: The defendant next argues that the trial court denied him a fair sentencing hearing under Illinois law and the eighth and fourteenth amendments when it refused his tendered instructions concerning the applicability of residual doubt and mercy. We find the defendant's claim meritless. The trial court may properly refuse a defendant's request for an instruction on nonstatutory mitigation if the court instructs the jurors that they are to consider any other reasons for imposing a sentence less than death. ( People v. Spreitzer (1988), 123 Ill.2d 1, 40, 121 Ill.Dec. 224, 525 N.E.2d 30.) The trial judge instructed the jury to consider [a]ny other reason supported by the evidence why the defendant should not be sentenced to death. The instructions given allowed the jury to consider all reasons why defendant should not be sentenced to death including residual doubt and mercy. This instruction comports with Illinois law and the eighth and fourteenth amendments; thus, defendant's claim must fail. Spreitzer, 123 Ill.2d at 40-41, 121 Ill.Dec. 224, 525 N.E.2d 30.