Opinion ID: 1347716
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: issues

Text: CONCLUSION. The statutory question which a capital jury is required to answer is not unconstitutionally vague. In the penalty phase of a capital case, the jury is required to answer the following statutory question which was included in the trial court's special sentencing proceeding instruction 4 (Clerk's Papers, at 2613): Having in mind the crime of which the defendant has been found guilty, are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency? RCW 10.95.060(4). The Defendant argues (without any supporting authority) that the question which the jury is to decide during the penalty phase of a capital case is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Eighth Amendment and his due process rights. The Defendant did not raise this issue below and in fact requested a substantially identical instruction. As explained above, in the future the doctrine of invited error will be applied in capital cases, but in this case we will address the issue. [50] In State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631, 667, 845 P.2d 289, cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 382 (1993), the defendant argued that the above quoted statutory question failed to channel jury discretion, promoted unequal administration of law and could not be comprehended by the sentencing jury. We answered that argument as follows. This court has previously stated that the particular question which is put to the jury as mandated by statute under RCW 10.95.060(4) satisfies due process and the Eighth Amendment. See [ State v. ] Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d [398,] 422-23[, 717 P.2d 722, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986)]; [ State v. ] Campbell, 103 Wn.2d [1,] 28[, 691 P.2d 929 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1094 (1985)]; [ State v. ] Bartholomew, 101 Wn.2d [631,] 647[, 683 P.2d 1079 (1984)]; [ State v. ] Rupe, 101 Wn.2d [664,] 709[, 683 P.2d 571 (1984)]. Benn, 120 Wn.2d at 669. In Tuilaepa v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 129 L.Ed.2d 750, 114 S.Ct. 2630 (1994) the United States Supreme Court explained that the requirement of individualized determination required in capital cases is met when the jury can consider relevant mitigating evidence of the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime. This is what a capital jury in this state is to focus on and penalty phase jury instruction 4 was followed by instruction 5, which informed the jury that it was to consider as mitigating circumstances any other factors concerning the offense or the defendant that it found to be relevant. Special sentencing proceeding instruction 5 (Clerk's Papers, at 2614). We conclude, as we have concluded repeatedly in the past, that RCW 10.95.060(4) is constitutional.