Opinion ID: 2310530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Definition of the Burden of Proof for Sentencing

Text: At the sentencing stage, the court correctly instructed the jury that aggravating circumstances must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, while mitigating circumstances take the standard of preponderance of evidence. In defining preponderance of the evidence, however, the court used the phrase less of a margin than by reasonable doubt. (T.T., April 25, 1984, p. 34.) Appellant now seizes upon the use of the word margin to conclude that the jury, therefore, had no standard by which to decide whether to impose the death sentence or life imprisonment. In effect, he insists that the use of the word margin confused the jury and thereby prejudiced him. Our cases have held that an appellate evaluation of a jury charge rests on an examination of the entire statement in determining whether it is fair or prejudicial. Commonwealth v. Ohle, 503 Pa. 566, 470 A.2d 61 (1983), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1083, 106 S.Ct. 854, 88 L.Ed.2d 894 (1986); Commonwealth v. Wortham, 471 Pa. 243, 369 A.2d 1287 (1977). We fail to see, and Appellant offers no argument on this point, how the court's definition could have confused the jury on any common-sense basis. In spite of the Appellant's express refusal to offer evidence of any mitigating circumstances, in any event, the jury did find that he had no significant history of prior convictions. In light of this fact, it cannot be concluded that the Appellant was prejudiced, and no relief can be obtained here. [9]