Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: The penalty phase form was constitutionally insufficient.

Text: In this argument, defendant alleges the language employed on the penalty phase verdict form impermissibly shifted the burden of proving the propriety of a life sentence on the defense. Specifically, defendant claims that although the verdict form used in this case conformed to the statutory requirements of LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 905.7, [45] it offends constitutional principles by limiting the jury's consideration of mitigation to that offered. We note that in its instructions to the jury at the conclusion of the penalty phase, the trial court not only addressed the aggravating circumstances, but fully detailed the seven mitigating circumstances, as well as referencing [a]ny other relevant mitigating circumstance. (R., vol.XV, pp. 3727-28). Thus, the jury was fully informed of the items it had to consider in its deliberation. Notwithstanding defendant's claims to the contrary, nothing suggests the jury was misled by the statutory language used in the verdict form and accordingly defendant fails to show that it introduced an arbitrary factor into its deliberations. This argument lacks merit.