Opinion ID: 1426947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Failing to object to the form of the special verdict.

Text: The jury found two aggravating circumstances: Leonard committed the murder while under sentence of imprisonment, and he had been previously convicted of murder and other violent felonies. It found two mitigating circumstances: the victim was a participant in Leonard's criminal conduct or consented to the act, and Leonard committed one or more of the aggravating factors while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The jury returned a special verdict form, whose last paragraph read: The mitigating circumstances we have found above: ___ Are sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found. Yes Are not sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found. Yes We therefore unanimously set the penalty at death. ___ We decline to impose the death penalty. Leonard objects to the word therefore in the third option, which immediately follows the option finding mitigators insufficient to outweigh aggravators. He reasons that once the jury determined that the mitigators did not outweigh the aggravators, the form told the jury that it therefore had no choice but to set the penalty at death. This argument might prevail if We decline to impose the death penalty were the second option; however, it is the final option, indicating that the jury need not impose death even if mitigating circumstances do not outweigh aggravating circumstances. Moreover, the jurors were instructed that even if they found that mitigators did not exist or did not outweigh aggravators, you still have the discretion to vote for [a sentence of life imprisonment with or without the chance of parole] rather than the death penalty. Therefore, the verdict form, read as a whole and with the jury instructions, was not misleading.