Opinion ID: 1836985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Instruction On Statutory Aggravator

Text: Butler argues the jury instruction on the statutory aggravating circumstance of heinous, atrocious, or cruel indicated that the aggravator had been established and deprived the jury of its decision-making on this issue. This issue has not been preserved for review since no objection was made in the trial court. There was no objection made to the jury instructions once each party was apprised by the court of how the instruction would be worded. See Hazen v. State, 700 So.2d 1207, 1211 (Fla.1997). The defense's failure to object is illustrated by the following exchange that occurred during the trial regarding where to place the definition of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator. THE COURT: Aggravating circumstance that can be considered is limited to the following that are the following. I think I'm going to leave that is the following established by the evidence or that is established by the evidence. DEFENSE COUNSEL: If you are going to make it singular. THE COURT: So I will put a comma in there by the following that is established by the evidence the crime for which and was conscious. It reads standing alone with aninsert special instruction at that point. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Pardon me, Judge? THE COURT: I inserted it right after that just before if you find the aggravating circumstances. DEFENSE COUNSEL: That's fine, Judge. No objection was made by the defense during this discussion. It is clear from this exchange that defense counsel accepted not only the placement of the definition of the HAC aggravator, but also the wording of the instructions related to it. As the State points out, this issue is also without merit. The defense has proffered an argument based purely on semantics. The instructions given at trial on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator read as follows, in pertinent part: The aggravating circumstance that you may consider is limited to the following, that is established by the evidence: The crime for which the defendant is to be sentenced was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. (Emphasis added.) The standard jury instructions on aggravators states: The aggravating circumstances that you may consider are limited to any of the following that are established by the evidence. The only practical difference between the two instructions is that the one given at trial involved one aggravator while the standard jury instruction contemplates a situation where more than one aggravator has been established by the evidence. Defense counsel showed an awareness of this slight linguistic difference when he stated, If you are going to make it singular after the judge stated he would instruct the jury to consider a certain aggravator. Had defense counsel disagreed with these instructions, he should have objected at that moment. His failure to do so indicates his agreement with the court's version of the jury instructions. We therefore deny relief on this claim.