Opinion ID: 1396611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Statutory Procedures During the Sentencing Phase

Text: As his final point, appellant argues that the circuit court erred in imposing the death penalty because the jury failed to strictly follow the statutory procedures and ignored the stipulated mitigating factor of no significant prior criminal history. To impose the death penalty, a jury has the following statutory obligations: (a) The jury shall impose a sentence of death if it unanimously returns written findings that: (1) Aggravating circumstances exist beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Aggravating circumstances outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all mitigating circumstances found to exist; and (3) Aggravating circumstances justify a sentence of death beyond a reasonable doubt.    (c) If the jury does not make all findings required by subsection (a) of this section, the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-603(a), (c) (Repl. 1997). As a criminal statute, section 5-4-603 must be strictly construed in favor of the accused. Carter v. State, 350 Ark. 229, 85 S.W.3d 914 (2002). In connection with the statutory requirements for the imposition of the death penalty, the Arkansas Model Jury InstructionsCriminal for the punishment phase of a capital murder case include four separate verdict forms: Form 1the jury's findings concerning possible aggravating circumstances; Form 2the jury's findings concerning possible mitigating circumstances; Form 3the jury's weighing of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances; and Form 4the jury's sentence of death or life without the possibility of parole. See AMI Crim.2d 1008. In some cases, we have found no reversible error where certain portions of Form 2 were filled out inconsistently by the jury. Jones v. State, 329 Ark. 62, 72, 947 S.W.2d 339, 344 (1997); Hill v. State, 289 Ark. 387, 713 S.W.2d 233 (1986). In one case, we have found error where the jury did not clearly indicate on Form 3 that the aggravating circumstances justify a sentence of death beyond a reasonable doubt. Camargo v. State, supra . In the instant case, the supplemental record includes Forms 1 through 4. Because the State stipulated at trial that appellant had no significant criminal history, the circuit court indicated orally that section D of Form 2 would be omitted. That particular section is applicable only if no evidence of a mitigating circumstance was presented. The jury here checked various boxes on Forms 1, 3, and 4, but no boxes are checked on Form 2. The jury foreman signed Forms 1, 3, and 4, but there is no signature on Form 2. The circuit clerk marked Forms 1, 3, and 4 as received, but the clerk did not mark Form 2 as received. In fact, the Form 2 included in the supplemental record has no marks on it at all. Thus, we are presented with no proof that Form 2 was ever presented to the jury or received by the circuit clerk. There is no written proof that the jury considered any mitigating circumstances. Section 5-4-603 requires written findings that [a]ggravating circumstances outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all mitigating circumstances found to exist. Without a signed and filed Form 2, this court is unable to say that the jury considered any possible mitigating circumstances, much less that it concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the only aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances found to exist. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. GLAZE and HANNAH, JJ., concur. THORNTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.