Opinion ID: 1690710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the trial court's antisympathy instruction coupled with denial of a mercy instruction violated the united states and mississippi constitutions and mississippi law.

Text: ś 105. Doss alleges error by the trial court for failing to give instructions D-59, and instruction D-S-24. They are as follows: D-59 The Court instructs the jury that although at the guilt and innocence phase of the trial, you were instructed that you were not to be swayed by sympathy, at this phase of the trial you are bound by law and your oath as jurors to consider mitigating factors. Mitigating factors are facts that, while they do not justify or excuse the crime, nevertheless in fairness and sympathy and mercy to Anthony Doss, must be considered by you as extenuating or reducing the degree of his blame or punishment. You may not, however, be swayed by prejudice or public opinion. D-S-24 ... . . You may find that a sentence of death is inappropriate even if there is only a single mitigating circumstance and multiple aggravating circumstances. You may also find that death is not warranted even though there are one or more aggravating circumstances and not a single mitigating circumstance. You are not required to find any mitigating circumstance in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. Nor does the finding of an aggravating circumstance require that you return a sentence of death. You as a juror always have the option to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment, whatever findings you make. ś 106. Doss contends that the denial of these instructions denied him due process under Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 100 S.Ct. 2227, 65 L.Ed.2d 175 (1980). Doss further asserts that the refusal of said instructions violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 3, Section 14 and 28, of the Mississippi Constitution. The State disagrees. ś 107. The State asserts yet another procedural bar against Doss for failing to object as required by Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 677 (Miss. 1991); See Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss. 1987); Shelton v. State, 445 So.2d 844, 846 (Miss. 1984). Furthermore, the State argues that these instructions are mercy instructions to which this Court has repeatedly held that a defendant is not entitled. This Court has explicitly held that a defendant has no right to a mercy instruction. Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 761 (Miss. 1991) (citations omitted); See also Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1300-01 (Miss. 1994). ś 108. The first instruction is clearly a mercy instruction. The Court has clearly held that a defendant is not entitled to such. Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 761 (Miss. 1991) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the first instruction under this issue is without merit in addition to being procedurally barred. ś 109. The second instruction is not a mercy instruction explicitly, but has an effect of mercy. However, the second instruction is not much different than the weighing language from other instructions such as C-1 which was given. Accordingly, the denial of this instruction under this issue is without merit as well in addition to being procedurally barred.