AL · jury_instructions

Ala. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) PENALTY_PHASE_CAPITAL_18PLUS

Penalty Phase Capital 18+, effective after passage of Act No. 2017-131

activein force · 2026-08-20 – presentas-observed

Penalty Proceedings--Capital Cases

(Where Defendant Was 18 Years Old or Older at Time of Offense)*

*See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding that juvenile offenders are not

eligible for death penalty), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding

unconstitutional statutory sentencing scheme mandating life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole for juvenile offenders).

[These Pattern Jury Instructions for penalty -phase proceedings in capital cases have

been revised to reflect the repeal by Act No. 2017 -131 of the judicial override. Act No.

2017-131 is applicable only to "any defendant who is charged with capital murder after

the effective date of this Act" (i.e., April 11, 2017) and "shall not apply retroactively to any

defendant who has previously been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death

prior to the effective date of this Act." Act No. 2017-131, § 2.]

[Read one of these choices:

I. Same jury as guilt phase and automatic aggravator

II. Same jury as guilt phase and no automatic aggravator

III. Same jury as guilt phase and no aggravator

IV. Different jury than guilt phase and automatic aggravator

V. Different jury than guilt phase and no automatic aggravator

VI. Different jury than guilt phase and no aggravator]

I. SAME JURY AS GUILT PHASE AND AUTOMATIC AGGRAVATOR

A. INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE PENALTY PHASE BEGINS

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have found the defendant guilty of the capital

offense(s) of [list the capital offense(s) defendant was convicted of as listed in Alabama

Code 1975, Section 13A-5-40(a)].

We are now about to begin the penalty -phase proceeding. This phase will be

similar in format to the guilt-phase proceeding you have just completed. However, the

duty now before you is to decide whether the punishment shall be death or life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The State and the defendant will have the opportunity to present evidence relative

to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant. You are instructed that this

evidence, considered with the evidence you have already heard in the guilt phase, is

presented in order that you might determine, first, whether any additional aggravating

circumstance(s) exist(s) beyond the one(s) established by your guilty verdict and, second,

whether the aggravating circumstance(s) outweigh(s) the mitigating circums tance(s). At

the conclusion of the taking of the evidence and after argument of counsel, you will be

instructed on the factors in aggravation and mitigation you may consider.

B. INSTRUCTIONS AFTER THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE AND THE

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL

1. Duty

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is now your duty to decide whether the

punishment shall be death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The law of this State provides that the punishment for the capital offense(s) of

[list the capi tal offense(s) defendant was convicted of as listed in Alabama

Code 1975, Section 13A-5-40(a)], for which this defendant has been convicted,

is either death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The law

also provides that the punishment that should be imposed upon the defendant

depends on whether any aggravating circumstance(s) exist(s) beyond a

reasonable doubt and, if so, whether the aggravating circumstance(s)

outweigh(s) the mitigating circumstance(s).

2. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

An aggravating circumstance is a circumstance specified by law that indicates,

or tends to indicate, that the defendant should be sentenced to death. A

mitigating circumstance is any circumstance that indicates, or tends to indicate,

that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole. The issue at this sentencing hearing concerns the

existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, which you should

weigh against each other to determine the punishment that you decide.

3. Evidence and Law

Your verdict should be based upon the evidence that you heard while deciding

the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the evidence that has been

presented to you in these proceedings, as well as the law of whi ch I am

instructing you.

4. Automatic Aggravating Circumstances

[Give appropriate instruction(s) relating to the aggravating circumstance(s)

(established by the guilt -phase verdict) as found in Appendix A, "Capital

Offenses Containing an Aggravating Circum stance Established by the Guilt -

Phase Verdict."]

5. Nonautomatic Aggravating Circumstances

[Give this instruction only if the State is offering an aggravating circumstance(s)

in addition to the aggravating circumstance(s) established by the guilt -phase

verdict. If the State is not offering an additional

a. As previously stated, your verdict in the guilt phase, finding the

defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, established by law the

existence of the following aggravating circumstance(s): [List appropriate

aggravating circumstance(s) found in Appendix B, "Aggravating

Circumstances."].

b. The additional aggravating circumstance(s) proffered by the State that

you may consider is/are limited to the following: [List appropriate

aggravating circumstances proffered as found in Appendix B, "Aggravating

Circumstances."].

c. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the

existence of the aggravating circumstance(s) [list the additional aggravating

circumstance(s) the State is attempting to prove from Appendix B]. The

phrase "reasonable doubt " is self -explanatory. Efforts to define it do not

always clarify the term. It is not a mere possible doubt because everything

relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A

reasonable doubt is a doubt of a fair-minded juror honestly seeking the truth

after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is

a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It does not mean a vague

or arbitrary notion, but is an actual doubt based upon the evidence, the lack

of evidence, a conflict in the evidence, or a combination thereof. It is a doubt

that remains after going over in your mind the entire case and giving

consideration to all the testimony and evidence. It is distinguished from a

doubt arising from mere possibility , from bare imagination, or from fanciful

conjecture.

d. If, after considering all the evidence from both the guilt phase and this

penalty phase, you are convinced of the existence of any of the proffered

aggravating circumstance(s) beyond a reasonable doubt, it will then be your

duty to consider that/those aggravating circumstance(s) during your

sentencing deliberations. However, if you have a reasonable doubt about a

proffered aggravating circumstance, you should not consider that

aggravating circumstance during your sentencing deliberations. I remind

you that your verdict in the guilt phase, finding the defendant guilty as

charged in the indictment, established by law the existence of the following

aggravating circumstance(s): [List appropriate aggravating circumstance(s)

from Appendix B.].

6. Mitigating Circumstances

a. The defendant is allowed to offer any evidence in mitigation --that is,

evidence that indicates, or tends to indicate, that the defendant should be

sentenced to life imprisonment without t he possibility of parole instead of

death. The defendant does not bear a burden of proof in this regard. All the

defendant must do is simply present the evidence.

b. The laws of this State provide that mitigating evidence shall include, but

not be limited to, the following enumerated mitigating circumstances: [List

appropriate mitigating circumstance(s) found in Appendix C, "Mitigating

Circumstances."].

c. The laws of this State further provide that mitigating circumstances shall

not be limited to those I just listed, but shall also include any aspect of the

defendant's character or background, any circumstances surrounding the

offense, and any other relevant mitigating evidence that the defendant

offers as support for a sentence of life imprisonment withou t the possibility

of parole.

d. If the factual existence of any evidence offered by the defendant in

mitigation is in dispute, the State shall have the burden of disproving the

factual existence of the disputed mitigation evidence by a preponderance

of the evidence.

e. The preponderance -of-the-evidence standard requires the State --in

order to negate the existence of disputed mitigating evidence --to offer

evidence of greater weight, or evidence that is more convincing, than that

offered by the defendant.

f. If you believe that the State's offered evidence outweighs, or is more

convincing than, the mitigating evidence offered by the defendant, then that

mitigating evidence should not be considered in sentencing.

g. On the other hand, if you believe that the State's offered evidence is of

less or equal weight, or is less convincing, than the mitigating evidence

offered by the defendant, then that mitigating evidence shall be considered

in sentencing.

h. Your determination concerning the existence of mitigating

circumstances should not, however, be influenced by passion, prejudice, or

any other arbitrary factors. Your determination should be based solely on

the evidence presented and the law as I have explained it to you.

7. Special Verdict Form

[Give this instruction only if the State is offering an aggravating circumstance(s)

in addition to the aggravating circumstance(s) established by the guilt -phase

verdict. If the State is not offering an additional aggravating circumstance(s),

proceed to 8.]

a. Before you proceed to determine the defendant's sentence, you must

first determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt

the existence of any aggravating circumstance(s) in addition to the

aggravating circumstance(s) proven during the guilt phase. You will need to

answer the following question(s): [Provide the jury with a special verdict

form, an example of which is provided below, for each of the proffered

aggravating circumstances.].

[Example special verdict form]:

Do you unanimously agree that th e State of Alabama has

proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the capital offense

was [insert applicable circumstances, such as "especially

heinous, atrocious, or cruel compared to other offenses"]?

_____Yes _____No

_____________________ Signature of foreperson

Only if you answer "yes" may you then consider that

aggravating circumstance, in addition to the previously found

automatic aggravating circumstance(s), in determining the

sentence. After that, you should th en proceed to determine

whether the sentence shall be death or life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole.

8. Reaching a Sentencing Verdict

a. In determining punishment, you must avoid any influence of passion,

prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Your deliberation and verdict should

be based upon the evidence and testimony you have seen and heard and

the law on which I have instructed you.

b. The process of weighing the aggravating circumstances and the

mitigating circumstances against each other in order to determine the

proper punishment is not a mathematical process. In other words, you

should not merely total the number of aggravating circumstances and

compare that number to the total number of mitigating circumstances.

c. The law of thi s State recognizes that it is possible, in at least some

situations, that one or a few aggravating circumstances might outweigh a

larger number of mitigating circumstances. The law of this State also

recognizes that it is possible, in at least some situations, that a large number

of aggravating circumstances might not outweigh one or a few mitigating

circumstances. In other words, the law contemplates that different

circumstances may be given different weights or values in determining the

sentence in a case, and you, the jury, are to decide what weight or value is

to be given to a particular circumstance in determining the sentence in light

of all the other circumstances in this case. You must do that in the process

of weighing the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating

circumstances.

d. In order to bring back a verdict of death, at least 10 of your number must

vote for death. In other words, a verdict of death must be: unanimous; or 11

for death and 1 for life imprisonment without the possibility o f parole; or 10

for death and 2 for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Any

number less than 10 cannot reach a verdict of death.

e. In order to bring back a verdict of life imprisonment without the possibility

of parole, at least seven jurors must vote to impose that sentence. In other

words, in order for a verdict to be returned of life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole it must be: unanimous; or 11 for life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole and 1 for death; or 10 for life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole and 2 for death; or 9 for life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole and 3 for death; or 8 for life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole and 4 for death; or 7 for life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole and 5 for death. Any number less than seven

cannot reach a verdict of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

f. In addition to the verdict of either death or life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole, your verdict form must contain the numerical vote, not

who voted in which way, but the actual count.

g. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if, after a full and fair consideration of all the

evidence in this case and the law as the Court has instructed you, you are

convinced that the aggravating circumstance(s) outweigh(s) the mitigating

circumstance(s), your verdict would be:

We, the jury, determine that the defendant, [insert name of

defendant], be sentenced to death. The vote is as follows:

___# for Death ___# for Life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole

_____________________ Signature of foreperson

h. However, if, after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence and the

law as the Court has instructed you, you are not convinced that the

aggravating circumstance(s) outweigh(s) the mitigating circumstance(s),

your verdict would be:

We, the jury, determine that the defendant, [insert name of

defendant], be sentenced to life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole. The vote is as follows:

___# for Death ___# for Life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole

______________________ Signature of foreperson

II. SAME JURY AS GUILT PHASE AND NO AUTOMATIC AGGRAVATOR

A. INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE PENALTY PHASE BEGINS

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have found the defendant guilty of the capital

offense(s) of [list the capital offense(s) defendant was convicted of under Alabama Code

1975, Section 13A-5-40(a)].

We are now about to begin the penalty -phase proceedin g. This phase will be

similar in format to the guilt -phase proceeding you have just completed. However, the

duty now before you is to decide whether the punishment shall be death or life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The State and the defendant will have the opportunity to present evidence relative

to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant. You are instructed that this

evidence, when considered with the evidence you have already heard in the guilt phase,

is presented in order that you might determine, first, whether any aggravating

circumstance(s) exist(s) that would render death an available punishment option and,

second, whether the aggravating circumstance(s) outweigh(s) the mitigating

circumstance(s). At the conclusi on of the taking of the evidence and after argument of

counsel, you will be instructed on the factors in aggravation and mitigation you may

consider.

B. INSTRUCTIONS AFTER THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE AND THE

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL

1. Duty

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is now your duty to decide whether the

punishment shall be death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The law of this State provides that the punishment for the capital offense(s) of

[list the capital offense(s) defendant wa s convicted of under Alabama Code

1975, Section 13A -5-40(a)], for which this defendant has been convicted, is

either death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The law also

provides that the punishment that should be imposed upon the def endant

depends on whether any aggravating circumstance(s) exist(s) beyond a

reasonable doubt and, if so, whether the aggravating circumstance(s)

outweigh(s) the mitigating circumstance(s).

2. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

An aggravating circumstance is a circumstance specified by law that indicates,

or tends to indicate, that the defendant should be sentenced to death. A

mitigating circumstance is any circumstance that indicates, or tends to indicate,

that the defendant should be sentenced to li fe imprisonment without the

possibility of parole. The issue at this sentencing hearing concerns the

existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, which you should

weigh against each other to determine the punishment that you decide.

3. Evidence and Law

Your verdict should be based upon the evidence that you heard while deciding

the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the evidence that has been

presented to you in these proceedings, as well as the law of which I am

instructing you.

4. Nonautomatic Aggravating Circumstances

a. The aggravating circumstance(s) proffered by the State that you may

consider is/are limited to the following: [List appropriate aggravating

circumstances found in Appendix B, "Aggravating Circumstances."].

b. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the

existence of the aggravating circumstance(s) [list the aggravating

circumstance(s) the State is attempting to prove from Appendix B]. The

phrase "reasonable doubt" is self -explanatory. Effor ts to define it do not

always clarify the term. It is not a mere possible doubt because everything

relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A

reasonable doubt is a doubt of a fair-minded juror honestly seeking the truth

after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It

is a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It does not mean a

vague or arbitrary notion, but is an actual doubt based upon the evidence,

the lack of evidence, a conflict in the evidence, or a combination thereof. It

is a doubt that remains after going over in your mind the entire case and

giving consideration to all the testimony and evidence. It is distinguished

from a doubt arising from mere possibility, from bare imagination, or from

fanciful conjecture.

c. As I previously stated, the burden of proof is on the State to convince

each of you beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any

aggravating circumstances to be considered by you in determining what the

punishment is to be in this case. This means that before you can even reach

a verdict that the defendant's punishment be death, each and every one of

you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence

that at least one of the aggravating circumstances exist. If you are not

unanimously convinced that one and the same aggravating circumstance

exists beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence, then you must

return a verdict sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment without the

possibility of paro le, regardless of whether there are any mitigating

circumstances in this case.

d. The evidence upon which a reasonable doubt about an aggravating

circumstance may be based is both the evidence you heard in the guilt

phase of this trial and the evidence you have heard in this sentence hearing.

The defendant does not have to disprove anything about an aggravating

circumstance. The burden is wholly upon the State to prove such a

circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt about an

aggravating circumstance may arise from all the evidence, from any part of

the evidence, or from a lack or failure of the evidence.

e. In the event that you do not find that any aggravating circumstance(s)

has/have been proven by the State, you need not concern yourself with the

mitigating circumstances in this case. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt

that [the aggravating circumstance]/[one or more of the aggravating

circumstances] on which I instructed you does exist in this case, then you

must proceed to consider and determine the mitigating circumstances.

5. Mitigating Circumstances

a. The defendant is allowed to offer any evidence in mitigation --that is,

evidence that indicates, or tends to indicate, that the defendant should be

sentenced to life imprisonment wi thout the possibility of parole instead of

death. The defendant does not bear a burden of proof in this regard. All

the defendant must do is simply present the evidence.

b. The laws of this State provide that mitigating evidence shall include, but

not be limited to, the following enumerated mitigating circumstances: [List

appropriate mitigating circumstance(s) found in Appendix C, "Mitigating

Circumstances."].

c. The laws of this State further provide that mitigating circumstances shall

not be limited to those I just listed, but shall also include any aspect of the

defendant's character or background, any circumstances surrounding the

offense, and any other relevant mitigating evidence that the defendant

offers as support for a sentence of life imprisonmen t without the possibility

of parole.

d. If the factual existence of any evidence offered by the defendant in

mitigation is in dispute, the State shall have the burden of disproving the

factual existence of the disputed mitigation evidence by a preponderan ce

of the evidence.

e. The preponderance -of-the-evidence standard requires the State --in

order to negate the existence of disputed mitigating evidence --to offer

evidence of greater weight, or evidence that is more convincing, than that

offered by the defendant.

f. If you believe that the State's offered evidence outweighs, or is more

convincing than, the mitigating evidence offered by the defendant, then that

mitigating evidence should not be considered in sentencing.

g. On the other hand, if you believe that the State's offered evidence is of

less or equal weight, or is less convincing, than the mitigating evidence

offered by the defendant, then that mitigating evidence shall be considered

in sentencing.

h. Your determination concerning the existence of mitigating

circumstances should not, however, be influenced by passion, prejudice, or

any other arbitrary factors. Your determination should be based solely on

the evidence presented and the law as I have explained it to you.

6. Special Verdict Form

a. Before you can reach a verdict of death, each and every one of you must

be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence, that at

least one aggravating circumstance exists. If you cannot agree that at least

one aggravating circumstance exists, you must return a verdict of life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, if you unanimously

find at least one aggravating circumstance to exist beyond a reasonable

doubt, you should then proceed to make a determination of death or life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

b. Therefore, before you proceed to determine the defendant's sentence,

you must answer the following question(s): [Provide the jury with a special

verdict form, an example of which is provided below, for eac h of the

proffered aggravating circumstances.].

Do you unanimously agree that the State of Alabama has

proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the capital offense

was [insert applicable circumstance, such as "especially

heinous, atrocious, or cruel compared to other offenses"]?

_____Yes _____No

______________________ Signature of foreperson

If you answer [this question]/[at least one of these questions]

yes, you should then proceed to determine whether the

sentence shall be death or life imprisonment wi thout the

possibility of parole. If you answer [this question]/[all of these

questions] no, you shall return a verdict of life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole.

7. Reaching a Sentencing Verdict

a. In determining punishment, you must avoid a ny influence of passion,

prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Your deliberation and verdict should

be based upon the evidence and testimony you have seen and heard and

the law on which I have instructed you.

b. The process of weighing the aggravatin g circumstances and the

mitigating circumstances against each other in order to determine the

proper punishment is not a mathematical process. In other words, you

should not merely total the number of aggravating circumstances and

compare that number to the total number of mitigating circumstances.

c. The law of this State recognizes that it is possible, in at least some

situations, that one or a few aggravating circumstances might outweigh a

larger number of mitigating circumstances. The law of this Stat e also