Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: were sentencing instructions s-1 and s-2 improperly granted?

Text: Sentencing instruction S-1 set out the four possible elements of aggravation and advised the jury that to return the death penalty they must find that any aggravating circumstances  those which tend to warrant the death penalty  outweigh the mitigating circumstances  those which tend to warrant the less severe penalty. We find no error in this instruction. Although Frank, Sr. complains S-1 did not define the aggravating circumstances, we note the defense offered no instruction purporting to define them; nor was any objection interposed to S-1. In Williams v. State, 445 So.2d at 807, we held, [N]o assignment of error involving the giving of an instruction to the jury will be considered on appeal unless a specific objection to the instruction was made in the court below. Miss.Sup.Ct. Rule 42. We observe additionally that the language of S-1 follows Mississippi Code Annotated, §§ 99-19-101 and 99-19-103 (Supp. 1984). We are of the opinion, stated simply, that had Frank, Sr. objected to this instruction, the objection would have been properly overruled. Secondly, Frank, Sr. argues sentencing instruction S-2 impermissibly favored a sentence of death by instructing the jury foreman concerning the completion of verdict forms only if a death sentence were imposed. We first observe defense counsel expressly waived any objection to S-2. Additionally, we find no error in this instruction which adheres to Mississippi Code Annotated, § 99-19-103 (Supp. 1984). We are of the opinion the court committed no error in granting instructions S-1 and S-2.