Opinion ID: 2582516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The jury's failure to fully mark a special verdict form

Text: The jury received a special verdict form directing it to check any listed mitigating circumstances that it found or to check that it found none. The form then directed the jury to check that either the mitigating circumstances were sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances or were not. The jury checked only the final item on the verdict form: the mitigating circumstances were not sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Gallego contends that the failure to fill out the whole verdict form shows that the jury failed to consider the mitigating evidence and weigh it against the aggravating circumstances. He also claims that he proved, without rebuttal, the eleven mitigators listed on the form. As an initial point, there is no requirement that a jury specify the mitigating circumstances it has found. [35] NRS 175.554(3) provides that the jury need only state that there are no mitigating circumstances which outweigh the aggravating. [36] The jury here so stated. We do not accept Gallego's suggestion that jurors had to find some or all of his proffered mitigating circumstances simply because he presented unrebutted evidence to support them. Although the State did not offer any direct rebuttal evidence, the prosecutor cross-examined the defense psychiatrist vigorously and argued generally against the mitigating force of Gallego's evidence. Jurors were properly instructed to consider the evidence presented in mitigation. We presume that the jurors followed their instructions and considered the evidence. [37] Gallego fails to cite any authority which holds that a jury is required to find a mitigating circumstance when a defendant presents evidence in support of that circumstance. [38] It appears that the jurors found no mitigating circumstances and simply overlooked that they were supposed to indicate this on the form. We conclude that no error occurred here. Given the jury's failure to fill out the entire verdict form, Gallego also claims that this court cannot perform its mandatory review of his death sentence because we must review the weight that jurors gave to the mitigating evidence. We disagree. NRS 177.055(2) requires this court to consider, among other things, whether a death sentence is excessive. To do so, we must consider the mitigating evidence presented by a capital defendant, but our review is not dependent on the jury's assessment of that evidence. In fact, as discussed above, this court may not even know the jurors' findings on particular alleged mitigators because a verdict form specifying such findings is not required. Therefore, the jury's failure to fully mark its verdict form does not prevent our mandatory review of Gallego's sentence.