Opinion ID: 865371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instructions, DSP-1, DSP-3 and SSP-4A

Text: ¶56. Citing Leatherwood v. State, 435 So. 2d 645, 650 (Miss. 1983), King asserts that the trial court erred in refusing jury instructions DSP-1 and DSP-3, which would have instructed the jury that they could choose to sentence a defendant to life in prison even if aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances or in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. Additionally, King argues that the Jury Instruction SSP-4A misled the jury that the death sentence is mandatory if the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstance. While King concedes that trial courts may refuse mercy instructions, he argues that the trial court’s failure to do so in this case was erroneous because it also gave confusing instructions which failed to properly instruct the jury about the weighing process. 43 ¶57. DSP-1 instructed the jury as to the steps to follow in determining whether King should be sentenced to death, life in prison without a possibility of parole or life in prison. DSP-1 stated that “[a] mitigating circumstance is one that does not excuse the crime but which, in fairness, sympathy and mercy, you should consider as a reason to impose the less severe penalty of life in prison or life in prison with the possibility of parole.” (Emphasis added). DSP-1 further instructed the jury that they were not required automatically to impose the death penalty even if they found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances or if they did not find any mitigating circumstances. In a single instruction, DSP-3 used this exact language from DSP-1 to instruct the jury that they were not required to impose death penalty despite a finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances or no mitigating circumstances existed. DSP-3 further instructs the jury that they could still conclude “that out of mercy the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or life in prison without possibility of parole.” (Emphasis added). ¶58. In King’s last appeal, this Court held that while each side may argue its respective position on the death penalty in closing argument during the sentencing phase, “neither side is entitled to a jury instruction regarding mercy or deterrence.” King, 784 So. 2d at 890. We further held that “[t]o the extent that our holding is contrary to previous case law on the subject, those cases are expressly overruled.” Id. We have on numerous occasions held that a capital defendant is not entitled to a mercy or sympathy instruction. See Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704, 758-59 (Miss. 2003); Edwards v. State, 737 So. 2d 275, 317 (Miss. 1999); Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 1088, 1099 (Miss. 1998). Further, “[t]he United States Supreme Court has held that giving a jury instruction allowing consideration of sympathy or mercy could induce 44 a jury to base its sentencing decision upon emotion, whim, and caprice instead of upon the evidence presented at trial.” Howell, 860 So. 2d at 759 (citing Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 492-95, 110 S. Ct. 1257, 1262-64, 108 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1990)). In Howell, we upheld the trial court’s refusal of an instruction 15 that included nearly the exact language found in DSP-1. Further, a defendant is not entitled to an instruction that the jury may return a life sentence even if the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances or if they do not find any mitigating circumstances. Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307, 354 (Miss. 1997), Hansen v. State, 592 So. 2d 114, 150 (Miss. 1991), Goodin v. State, 787 So. 2d 639, 657 (Miss. 2001), Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d 1263, 1301 (Miss. 1994). ¶59. Additionally, DSP-1 contained the language, “If, after reasonable deliberations, you cannot agree on a judgment, you should certify this disagreement to the Court and the Court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment. . . .” This Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to this type of instruction. See Smith v. State, 729 So. 2d 1191, 1221 (Miss. 1998). Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not committed reversible error in refusing jury instructions DSP-1 and DSP-3. ¶60. Instruction SSP-4A stated, “[i]f, after weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, you find unanimously that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, and that the death penalty should be imposed, your verdict should 15 “A mitigating circumstance is a fact which does not excuse the crime but which, in fairness and in mercy, you should consider as a reason to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than death.”Howell, 860 So.2d at 758. 45 be returned on a separate sheet of paper.” (Emphasis added). The instruction gave the following form for returning the verdict: ¶61. “We, the Jury, further unanimously find that after weighing the mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances, that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances and that the defendant should suffer the penalty of death.” King argues that the instruction did not denote that the phrase “and that the death penalty should be imposed” was an independent determination in addition to the weighing process. Instead, he asserts that it indicated that the death penalty automatically followed a finding that the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating ones. We are not persuaded by this argument, as this phrase is separated in the sentence with commas, following the language “ after weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances,” pointing out that the jurors are required to make a decision as to the sentence only after they have weighed the circumstances. ¶62. Further, in Manning v. State, 726 So. 2d 1152, 1197 (Miss. 1998) (overruled on other grounds), this Court addressed a similar instruction which also included the phrase “and that the death penalty should be imposed.” With regard to this phrase, this Court held that “[t]his part of the instruction makes it clear that the finding that the death penalty should be imposed is a separate decision to be made from the weighing of aggravators and mitigators.” Id. As such, this Court held that this instruction instructed the jury that it could return a life sentence even in the absence of mitigators, therefore there is no requirement that the jury be instructed that it has the power to vote for life imprisonment even if the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Id. A careful review of SSP-4A reveals no error on 46 the part of the trial court in giving this instruction. Accordingly, we find no merit to King’s claim.