Opinion ID: 2799378
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: D-S-2 and D-S-9

Text: ¶69. Ronk argues that the trial court erred in denying his proffered sentencing instructions D-S-2 and D-S-9, which informed the jury of its ability to sentence Ronk to life without parole even if it found no mitigating circumstances worthy of consideration. D-S-2 provided: 38 Each individual juror must decide for themselves whether the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole or probation is an appropriate punishment for the defendant. Even if mitigating circumstances do not outweigh aggravating circumstances, the law permits you, the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Only if you, the jurors, unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate punishment may you impose a sentence of death. . . . D-S-9 reiterated essentially the same concept, providing: The Court instructs the jury that a decision to sentence the Defendant to life imprisonment without parole, even if you find there are not mitigating circumstances in this case which are worthy of your consideration, and/or, your inability to reach a sentencing decision, will not violate the laws of this State or your oath as jurors. The State objected to the second sentence of D-S-2 and all of D-S-9, arguing that they were nullification instructions. The trial court rejected D-S-9 in its entirety, along with the second sentence of D-S-2, finding them to be improper sympathy instructions. The trial court removed the second sentence of instruction D-S-2 and presented it to the jury as instruction D-S-2A. ¶70. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing D-S-2 and D-S-9. This Court previously has found similarly worded instructions to be mercy instructions. See Galloway v. State, 122 So. 3d 614, 656 (Miss. 2013); Thorson v. State, 895 So. 2d 85, 108 (Miss. 2004); Ballenger, 667 So. 2d 1242, 1265 (Miss. 1995); Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d 1263, 1300 (Miss. 1994). “[C]apital defendants are not entitled to a mercy instruction.” Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 1088, 1099 (Miss. 1998) (citations omitted). “The State must not cut off full and fair consideration of mitigating evidence; but it need not grant the jury the choice to make the sentencing decision according to its own whims or caprice.” Saffle 39 v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 493, 110 S. Ct. 1257, 108 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1990). In this case, the substance of D-S-2 and D-S-9 was covered appropriately by sentencing instruction six, which informed the jury of its duty to “apply your reasoned judgment as to whether the situation calls for life imprisonment without parole or whether it requires the imposition of death[.]” This argument is without merit.