Opinion ID: 2428908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: error in the court and the prosecutor using the word recommend rather than fix to describe the jury's function in setting the death penalty

Text: This case was tried in March 1988, in the midst of a controversy highly publicized within the legal profession over the use of the word recommend to describe the role of the jury in handing down a death sentence. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), initiated this controversy. In Caldwell, the Court recognized that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere. Id., at 328-29, 105 S.Ct. at 2639. Caldwell requires reversal when any action by the court or prosecutor mislead[s] the jury as to its role in the sentencing process in a way that allows the jury to feel less responsible than it should for the sentencing decision. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 184-85, n. 15, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2473, n. 15, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). Our Court had already reached a similar result in Ice v. Commonwealth, Ky., 667 S.W.2d 671, 676 (1984), stating it is improper in a death penalty case by instructions or comment to convey the message that the jurors' awesome responsibility is lessened by the fact that their decision is not the final one. Our Court applied this same reasoning in reversing a death penalty verdict in Ward v. Commonwealth, Ky., 695 S.W.2d 404 (1985) and in a Concurring Opinion two Justices stated: Further, we should order that, prospectively, the forms of verdict provided to the jury to use upon a finding of guilty should provide `and fix the defendant's punishment at ____,' rather than using `and recommend a punishment of ____.' Id. at 409. In Tamme v. Commonwealth, Ky., 759 S.W.2d 51, 53 (1988), we did exactly that, prospectively banning the use of the word recommend with reference to a jury's sentencing responsibilities in voir dire, instructions or closing argument. Tamme was not rendered until a few months after this case was tried, but the handwriting was on the wall when this case was tried. Despite this forewarning, during the penalty stage, rather than asking for the sentence of death, the prosecutor urged the jury to recommend to Judge Morgan the penalty of death, and the jury instruction at the penalty phase reinforced that the jury's duty was only to recommend, and this concept was reinforced by repetition in the instructions related to fixing a penalty for burglary and arson. Notwithstanding, there might be some difficulty in deciding whether this case should be reversed under the standard enunciated in Ice and Ward, supra , were it not for the colloquy between juror Larry Dixon and the court, during which the prosecutor told the juror there was an automatic appeal from any death penalty verdict the jury returned, and the court openly agreed, stating any case in which the death penalty is given is automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. With this colloquy in mind, the question whether the jury fully shouldered the awesome responsibility for deciding the death penalty ( Ice, supra ) is in serious doubt, and the verdict is unreliable. This error was preserved, and the subsequent admonition that the juror was not to be concerned by anything that might happen later could not cure it. The juror had the message, and carried it with him to the jury room.