Opinion ID: 2512660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Executive clemency instruction

Text: Nika contends that the district court erred by dismissing his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to an executive clemency instruction. Relying on Geary v. State , [94] Nika argues that the instruction was improper because it failed to apprise the jury of the improbability of receiving executive clemency. In Geary, we held that a clemency instruction identical to the one given in Nika's case was unconstitutional because the instruction, coupled with arguments at the penalty hearing, may have caused the jury to speculate that a sentence of death was the only way to prevent Geary's eventual release from prison. [95] However, we have also held that the failure to object to the clemency instruction pursuant to Geary did not support a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because Geary announced a new rule that could not have been anticipated by counsel. [96] Geary was decided after Nika's trial, and thus, Nika's counsel cannot be faulted for failing to anticipate that decision. Moreover, we emphasized in Geary that our decision was limited to the unique circumstances of that case. [97] Since Geary was decided, we have factually distinguished Geary and rejected challenges to the clemency instruction in at least two other capital cases. [98] When doing so, this court looked to whether the prosecutor argued to the jury that the defendant could qualify for parole, whether the defendant had previously had a sentence commuted by the pardons board, and the extent to which the prosecutor emphasized to the jury the defendant's future dangerousness. [99] Here, during closing arguments the prosecutor did not refer to Nika's ability to qualify for parole or a pardon, nor did he directly emphasize that Nika posed a danger to other persons. None of the exceptional circumstances in Geary are present in Nika's case. Because Nika failed to show deficient performance or prejudice, we conclude that the district court did not err by summarily dismissing this claim. [100]