3116

gentlemen of the jury, that these arguments by the attorneys are not evidence. They are merely contentions of things the attorneys contend that you should discuss and talk about once you begin the sentencing phase.

Due to the time, the Court will not instruct you as to the law that you should apply at this phase until after the lunch break. You need to be back at 2:00.

It's very important that you not discuss this case among yourselves, with your family or friends, or anyone you come in contact with. Neither should you let anyone talk to you about the case or talk about this case in your presence. Do not read, watch, listen to any news or media accounts. And do not attempt to do any investigation or research on your own.

Have a nice lunch. I'll see you at two. Please report to the jury room at 2 o'clock.

(Jury absent)

THE COURT: While the jurors are clearing the elevators, I want to compliment the attorneys. I thought those were very excellent arguments and you're to be commended for your professionalism in making those arguments. I wish every citizen in the state had an opportunity to hear those arguments. Maybe we wouldn't be here as often as we are on these type of cases. So you can take professional pride in the job that you've

3117

done. All three of you.

Cleared?

Okay. Those of you who are here watching this case or have an interest in this case, we're going to begin -- the Court is going to begin its charge as to the law at 2 p.m. You need to be in the courtroom and in your seats. The charge will take about 15 to 20 minutes. You will not be allowed to leave when that charge is going on. I want to caution you -- admonish you not to approach any of the jurors or have any contact with them or say anything to them or approach them in any way during the lunch break. The jurors will be back at two. The Court will be back at two. You may now take a recess until 2:00, Sheriff.

(Luncheon recess)

AFTERNOON SESSION

THE COURT: Are there any matters we need to take care of before we bring the jury in?

MR. PANOSH: No, Your Honor.

MR. LLOYD: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bring them in.

(Jury present)

THE COURT: Everybody okay? Any problems?

I'm about to begin the charge as to the law that you should apply in the sentencing phase. If I speak

3118

too fast and not clear enough, just raise your hand and I'll be glad to slow down and go back over that portion of the charge with you.

Now, members of the jury, having found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, it is now your duty to recommend to the Court whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Your recommendation will be binding upon the Court. If you unanimously recommend that the defendant be sentenced to death, the Court will impose that sentence of death. If you unanimously recommend a sentence of life imprisonment, the Court will impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

There is no requirement to resubmit during the sentencing proceeding any evidence which was submitted during the guilt phase of this trial. All the evidence that you hear in both phases of the case is competent for your consideration in recommending the punishment.

It is now your duty to decide from all the evidence presented in both phases -- the guilt/innocence phase and the sentencing phase -- what the facts are. You must then apply the law which I'm about to give to you concerning punishment to those facts. It is absolutely necessary that you understand and apply the law as I give it to you and not as you think it is or as

3119

you might like for it to be. Now, this is important because justice requires that everyone who is sentenced for first-degree murder have the sentence recommendation determined in the same manner and have the same law applied to him.

You are the sole judges of the credibility of each witness. You must decide for yourselves whether to believe the testimony of any witness. You may believe all, or any part, or none of what a witness has said on the witness stand.

In determining whether to believe any witness, you should apply the same tests of truthfulness which you apply in your everyday affairs. As applied to this trial, these tests may include the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know, or remember the facts or occurrences about which the witness has testified; the manner and appearance of the witness; any interest, bias, or prejudice the witness may have; the apparent understanding and fairness of the witness; and whether the testimony of the witness is reasonable; and whether his or her testimony is consistent with the other believable evidence in the case.

You are the sole judges of the weight to be given any evidence. By this I mean if you decide that certain evidence is believable, you must then determine

3120

the importance of that evidence in light of all the other evidence in the case.

So I charge that for you to recommend that the defendant be sentenced to death, the State of North Carolina must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense arising out of some or all the evidence that has been presented or the lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you -- each of you of the following things:

First, that one or more aggravating circumstances existed.

Second, that the mitigating circumstances are insufficient to outweigh any aggravating circumstances you have found.

And third, that any aggravating circumstances you have found are sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of the death penalty when considered with any mitigating circumstances.

If you unanimously find all three of these things beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to recommend that the defendant be sentenced to death. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that one or

3121

more of these things -- these three things has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it would be your duty to recommend that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Now, when you retire to deliberate your recommendations as to punishment, you will take with you a form entitled "Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment." This form contains a written list of four issues relating to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I will now take up these four issues with you in greater detail one by one. To enable you to follow me more easily, the bailiff will now give each of you a copy of the form entitled "Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment," which you will take with you when you retire to deliberate. Do not read  ahead on this form, but refer to it as I instruct you on the law. Your answers to issues one, three and four, either "yes" or "no," must be unanimous.

Okay. If the court officer will pass those to the jury, please.

(Complied)

THE COURT: Issue Number One: Do you unanimously find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more of the following aggravating circumstances? There are two possible

3122

aggravating circumstances listed on the form. You should consider each of these before you answer Issue Number One.

The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt -- from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any aggravating circumstance, and before you may find any aggravating circumstance, you must agree unanimously that it has been so proven. An aggravating circumstance is a fact or group of facts which tend to make a specific murder particularly deserving of the maximum punishment prescribed by law. Our law identifies the aggravating circumstances which might justify a sentence of death. Only those circumstances identified by statute may be considered by you as aggravating circumstances. Under the evidence in this case, two possible aggravating circumstances may be considered.

The following are the aggravating circumstances which might be applicable to this case:

First, was this murder committed by the defendant while the defendant was engaged in the commission of first-degree arson? First-degree arson is the burning of a building which was a dwelling house of someone other than the defendant which is occupied when the defendant burned it; that is, that some person was

3123

physically present in the house at 2104 Brandon Station Court at the time of the burning. For you to find that the dwelling house was occupied, you must find that the murder and arson were so joined by time and circumstances as to be part of one continuous transaction, and that the defendant burned said dwelling maliciously, that is, that he intentionally without justification or excuse burned the dwelling.

So I charge that if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about October 9, 1995, the defendant burned a house located at 2104 Brandon Station Court, and that this house was a dwelling house, that is, it was a dwelling house of some person other than the defendant, that someone was physically present in the house located at 2104 Brandon Station Court when the defendant burned it, it would be your duty to find aggravating -- to find this aggravating circumstance and would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space after this aggravating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If you do not so find or if you - have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, you will not find this aggravating circumstance and will so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

3124

Second, was this murder committed for pecuniary gain? A murder is committed for pecuniary gain if the defendant when he commits it has obtained or intends or expects to obtain money or some other thing which can be valued to money either as compensation for committing it or as a result of the death of the victim. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that when the defendant killed the victim, the defendant expected to obtain money from his brother as a result of this murder, you would find this aggravating circumstance and would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space after this aggravating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If you do not so find or if^-you have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, you will not find this aggravating circumstance and will so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

You are instructed that the same evidence cannot be used as the basis for finding more than one aggravating factor. If you unanimously find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of - these aggravating circumstances existed and have so indicated by writing "yes" in the space after one or more of them on the Issues and Recommendation form, you would answer Issue Number One "yes." On the other hand,

3125

if you unanimously find from the evidence that none of the aggravating circumstances existed, and if you have so indicated by writing "no" in the space after every one of them on that form, you would answer Issue Number One "no." If you answer Issue Number One "no," you would skip Issues Two, Three and Four, and you must recommend that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment. If you answer Issue Number One "yes," then you would consider Issue Number Two.

Issue Number Two is: Do you find from the evidence the existence of one or more of the following mitigating circumstances. Fourteen possible mitigating circumstances are listed on the form and you should consider each of them before answering Issue Number Two.

A mitigating circumstance is a fact or group of facts which do not constitute a justification or excuse for a killing or reduce it to a lesser degree of crime than first-degree murder but which may be considered as extenuating or reducing the moral culpability of the killing or making it less deserving of extreme punishment than other first-degree murders. Our law identifies several possible mitigating circumstances. However, in considering Issue Number Two, it would be your duty to consider as a mitigating circumstance any aspect of the defendant's character or record or any

3126

other factor that the defendant contends is a basis for a sentence less than death, and any circumstances arising from the evidence which you deem to have mitigating value.

The defendant has the burden of persuading you that a given mitigating circumstance exists. The existence of any mitigating circumstance must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, that the evidence taken as a whole must satisfy you not beyond a reasonable doubt but simply satisfy you that any mitigating circumstance exists. If the evidence satisfies any of you that a mitigating circumstance exists, you would then indicate that finding on the Issues and Recommendation form. A juror may find that any mitigating circumstance exists by a preponderance of the evidence whether or not that circumstance was found to exist by all the jurors. In any event, you would move on to consider the other mitigating circumstances and continue in a like manner until you have considered all the mitigating circumstances listed on the form and any others which you deem to have mitigating value.

It is your duty to consider the following mitigating circumstances and any others which you find from the evidence:

3127

First, consider whether the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity before the date of the murder. All of the evidence, if believed, tends to show that this particular mitigating circumstance does exist, and the defendant is entitled to a peremptory instruction. Therefore, the foreman of the jury should write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form.

Second, consider whether the defendant, acted under the domination of another person. A defendant acts under the domination of another person if he acts at the command or under the control of the other person or in response to the assertion of any authority to which the defendant believes he is bound to submit or which the defendant did not have sufficient will to resist.

You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that the defendant was dominated by his older brother Ted throughout his life and that as a result the defendant was unable under the domination of another person when -- person when he killed the victim. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the circumstance exists, you would so indicate by having your foreman write "yes" in the space provided

3128

after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find this circumstance to exist, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Third, consider whether the age of the defendant at the time of this murder is a mitigating factor. The mitigating effect of the age of the defendant is for you to determine from all the facts and circumstances which you find from the evidence. Age is a flexible and relative concept. The chronological age of a defendant is not always the determinative factor. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the circumstance exists, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after that mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you finds this circumstance to exist, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

You should also consider the following circumstances arising from the evidence which you find to have mitigating value. If one or more of you find by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following circumstances exist and also are deemed by you to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space

3129

provided. If none of you find the circumstance to exist and if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space. And there are a list of these. I'm going to go through them one at a time.

Number Four, consider whether Rodney Kimble served his country as a corporal in the United States Marine Corps and was an excellent marine and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble did serve his country as a corporal in the United States Marine Corps and was an excellent marine and that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also deemed to -- is also deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" on the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find this circumstance to exist or none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that. space.

Fifth, consider whether Ronnie Kimble taught Sunday school at his father's church on Monnett Road and was a positive influence on younger children in the

3130

church and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble taught Sunday school at his father's church on Monnett Road and was a positive influence on younger children in the church and that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find the circumstance to exist or none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Sixth, consider whether Ronnie Kimble showed initiative in his youth by starting his own lawn care business and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble showed initiative and started -- as a youth started his own lawn care business-and if you find that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you -- if one or more of you find by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you

3131

would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find this circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Seven, consider whether Ronnie Kimble showed diligence as a good and hard worker from an early age and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble showed diligence as a good and hard worker at an early age and if you find that circumstance to have mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and is also deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the^-space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find this -- find the circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Number eight, consider whether Ronnie Kimble did a good job in the chaplain's office in the Marine Corps and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that

3132

Ronnie Kimble did a good job in the chaplain's office while in the Marine Corps and that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you finds the circumstance -- if none of you find the circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Number nine, consider whether Ronnie Kimble was responsible for James Dziadaszek quitting drinking and becoming more active in the church and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble was responsible for James Dziadaszek quitting drinking and becoming more active in the church and that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this - circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided on -- after the mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If

3133

none of you find the circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Number ten, consider whether Ronnie Kimble was deprived of an active and normal father in his early formative years due to his father's alcoholism and absence from the home and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble was deprived of an active and normal father in his early formative years due to his father's alcoholism and absence from the home and that this circumstance has mitigating value-. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find the circumstance to exist or none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Eleven, consider whether Ronnie Kimble has learning problems and was placed in learning disabled classes in school and whether you deem this to have

3134

mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble did experience learning problems and was placed in a learning disabled school along in school -- class while in school and that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find this circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Number twelve, consider whether Ronnie Kimble's mother was 18 and his father 20 when he was born and that their youth made his upbringing not as effective as it might have been had his parents been older and more mature and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble's parents did marry at an early age, that his mother was 18, his father was 20 when he was born and that his youth -- that their youth made his upbringing not as effective as it would have been had his parents been older and more mature and that

3135

this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find the circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Number thirteen, consider whether Ronnie Kimble was an active and willing participant in his church and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble was an active and willing participate in his church and that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you find the circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

3136

Fourteen, consider whether Ronnie Kimble was honest in his work dealings with those he worked for and whether you deem this to have mitigating value. You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that Ronnie Kimble was honest in his work dealings with those he worked for and that this circumstance has mitigating value. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you finds the circumstance to exist or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

Number fifteen, finally, you may consider any-other circumstance or circumstances arising from the evidence which one or more of you deem to have mitigating value. If one or more of you so find by a preponderance of the evidence, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issues and Recommendation form. If none of you finds any such circumstance to exist you would so indicate by having your foreperson write "no" in that space.

3137

Now, if one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence one or more mitigating circumstances and have so indicated by writing "yes" in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the Issue and Recommendation form, you would answer Issue Number Two "yes." If none of you find any other mitigating circumstance to exist and have so indicated by writing "no" in the space after every one of them on that form, you would answer Issue Number Two "no." If you answer Issue Number Two "yes," you must consider Issue Number Three. If you answer Issue Number Two "no," do not answer Issue Three. Instead, skip Issue Three and answer Issue four.

Issue three is: Do you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstance or circumstances found is or are insufficient to outweigh- the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by you?

If you find from the evidence one or more mitigating circumstances, you must weigh the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances. When deciding this issue, each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance or circumstances that the juror determined to exist by a preponderance of the evidence in Issue Two. In doing so, you are the sole judges of

3138

the weight to be given to any individual circumstance which you find, whether aggravating or mitigating. You should not merely add up the number of aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, but you must decide from all the evidence what value to give to each circumstance and then weigh the aggravating circumstances so valued against the mitigating circumstances so valued, and finally determine whether the mitigating circumstances are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.

If you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstances found are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found, you would answer Issue Number Three "yes." If you unanimously fail to so find, you would answer Issue Number Three "no." If you answer Issue Number Three "yes" -- "no," it would be your duty to recommend that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment. If ycu answer Issue Number Three "yes," then you must consider Issue Number Four.

Issue Number Four is: Do you unanimously find _ beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances you found is or are sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of the death penalty when considered with the mitigating

3139

circumstance or circumstances found by one or more of you?

In deciding this issue, you're not to consider the aggravating circumstances standing alone. You must consider them in connection with any mitigating circumstances found by one or more of you. When making this comparison, each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance or circumstances that juror determined to exist by a preponderance of the evidence. After considering the totality of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, each of you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the imposition of the death penalty is justified and appropriate in this case before you can answer the issue "yes." In so doing -­in so doing, you are not applying a mathematical formula. For example, three circumstances of one kind do not automatically out of necessity outweigh one circumstance of another kind. You may -- you may very properly give more weight to one circumstance than another. You must consider the relative substantiality and persuasiveness of the existing aggravating and mitigating circumstances in making this determination.

You, the jury, must determine how compelling and how persuasive the totality of the aggravating circumstances are when compared with the totality of the mitigating

3140

circumstances. After doing so, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances found by you are sufficiently substantial to call for the death penalty when considered with mitigating circumstances found by one or more of you, it would be your duty to answer this issue "yes." If you unanimously fail to so find, then it would be your duty to answer this issue "no."

In the event you do not find the existence of any mitigating circumstances, you must still answer this issue. In such case, you must determine whether the aggravating circumstances found by you are of such value, weight, importance, consequence, or significance as to be sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of the death penalty.

Substantial means having substance or weight, important, significant or momentous. Aggravating circumstances may exist in a particular case and still not be sufficiently substantial to call for the death penalty. Therefore, it is not enough that the State -­for the State to prove that the evidence -- prove the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances. It must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such aggravating circumstances are sufficiently substantial to call for

3141

the death penalty. And before you may answer Issue Number Four "yes," you must agree unanimously that they are.

If you answer Issue Number Four "no," you must recommend that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment. If you answer Issue Number Four "yes," it would be your duty to recommend that the defendant be sentenced to death.

Now, members of the jury, you've heard the evidence and you've heard the arguments of the attorney for the State and the attorneys for the defendant. The Court has not summarized all the evidence, but it is your duty to remember all the evidence whether it has been called to your attention or not, and if your recollection of the evidence differs from that of the Court or the district attorney or of the defense attorneys, you are to rely solely upon your own recollection of the evidence in your deliberations.

I have not reviewed the contentions of the State or the defendant, but it is your duty not only to consider all of the evidence, but also to consider all the arguments, the contentions and positions urged by the State's attorney and the defendant's attorneys in their speeches to you, and any other contention that arises from the evidence, and to weigh them in the light

3142

of your common sense and as best you can make your recommendation as to punishment.

The law, as indeed it should, requires that the presiding judge is to be impartial. You are not to draw any inference from any ruling I've made, or inflection in my voice or expression on my face, or any question I may have asked a witness or anything else I may have said or done during this trial, that I have an opinion or have intimated an opinion, as to whether any part of the evidence should be believed or disbelieved, as to whether any aggravating or mitigating circumstance has been proved or disproved, or as to what your recommendation ought to be in this matter. It is your exclusive province to find the true facts of the case and to make a recommendation reflecting the truth as you find it.

When you are ready do make a recommendation, have your foreperson write in your recommendations as directed on the Issues and Recommendation form.

At this point, the Court would ask that the three alternate jurors, if you'd go down to the room-that you previously occupied during this trial, please.

(Three alternate jurors absent)

THE COURT: As you retire to the jury room, you should first select one of your members to serve as your

3143

foreperson to lead in your deliberations. Do not begin your deliberations on the issues and recommendation until you receive the original Issues and Recommendation as to punishment form from the bailiff. Proceed immediately with the selection of your foreperson. And then after receiving the original written form, proceed with the deliberations. And when you've reached a decision as to the issues and recommendation and are ready to pronounce them and your foreperson has written the answers on the form, have your foreperson sign and date it, notify the bailiff by knocking on the door to the jury room, and you'll be returned to the courtroom to pronounce your answers to these issues and recommendation.

You may retire to the jury room and select your foreperson.

(Jury absent. 2:35 p.m.)

THE COURT: Before sending the Issues and Recommendation form to the jury and allowing them to begin their deliberations, I will now consider any requests for corrections to the charge to the jury or any additional matters that anyone feels are necessary and appropriate to submit a proper and accurate charge to the jury. Are there any specific requests for corrections or additions to the Court's charge?

3144

MR. PANOSH: No, Your Honor.

MR. LLOYD: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Verdict form delivered to the jury. 2:36 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Court will stand at ease until the jury returns.