Opinion ID: 1760434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Separate Penalty-Phase Jury

Text: As his first penalty-phase issue, Gordon argues that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for not only a separate penalty-phase jury but also a separate jury for each defendant. This claim is without merit. Our review of the record confirms the State's assertion that during the trial, Gordon never made a motion for a separate jury for the penalty phase or for separate penalty-phase juries for each co-defendant. [16] There is no mention of either of these issues during the guilt phase or in the transcript of the penalty-phase proceedings. Before the jury was sworn for the penalty phase, the discussion exclusively centered on jury instructions. The State correctly notes that McDonald's counsel first raised the issue in open court at the initial Spencer hearing on August 4, 1995, nearly two months after the penalty phase was conducted on June 16, 1995. At that time, McDonald's counsel referred to a joint defense motion filed on June 23, 1995, titled Motion for New Trial-Penalty Phase. While the motion does request a new penalty phase of the trial, it does not address the discrete issue of separate penalty-phase juries for each defendant. Beyond that, the motion was filed a week after the penalty phase concluded. Therefore, since the issues were not raised contemporaneously with the penalty phase proceedings, they are procedurally barred.