Case Review - Sentencing Guidelines & Double Jeopardy

In State v. Edwards the defendant was originally charged with first degree murder and armed criminal action. The jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder and armed criminal action and sentenced him to 25 years on the murder charge and 5 years on the armed criminal action.  On appeal the appellate court upheld  the convictions but reversed the sentences because the trial court refused to allow the defendant to testify during the penalty-phase.  During the second penalty-phase the jury was unable to reach an unanimous decision and the trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of 25 years on the murder charge and 5 years on the armed criminal action charge.  The defendant appealed on three grounds - failure of the trial court to allow the sentencing guidelines to be introduced as evidence; refusing his jury instruction; and a double jeopardy claim.

During the second penalty-phase the defendant attempted to introduce evidence through a parole officer's testimony of what the recommendation would be under  the Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission's sentencing guidelines.  These guidelines would have recommended that the defendant be sentenced to 10 years or under the aggravated sentence to 15 years.  The trial court refused to allow the evidence in but did let the defendant give an offer of proof on the sentencing guidelines presumed sentence.  After the offer of proof the State objected to the offer and the trial court sustained the objection. 

On appeal the defendant stated the trial court erred in not allowing this evidence in before the jury because if the jury had heard the testimony it would have reached an unanimous verdict and would have assessed a sentence less than that which he received from the trial court, and that the jury was entitled to rely on the same resources as that of the trial court judge.    The appellate court disagreed with this and stated that allowing the jury to rely on the sentencing guidelines alone would create a risk that it would place too much emphasis on the guidelines and not treat them as the recommendations that they are; that the guidelines are only guidelines or recommendations which the trial court is not mandated to follow; the trial court is only mandated to stay within the statutory range of punishment for the crime convicted; and that the guidelines do not account for the history and character of the defendant  nor the circumstances of the crime.  Further, the appellate court ruled that the sentencing guidelines are beyond the scope of permissible evidence allowed under section 557.036, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2006, in the penalty-phase of a jury trial.

The defendant also alleged that by refusing to allow his instruction which limited the range of punishment the jury could consider violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.  The range of punishment for second degree murder is 10 to 30 years or life imprisonment.  The defendant sought to limit the range of punishment to 25 years, the number of years the first jury had recommended.   This was the instruction that he submitted and which was refused by the trial court.  Without going into the reasoning here, the appellate court found against the defendant on the jury instruction issue. 

The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a retrial of a defendant who has been acquitted of a crime charged.  On this  issue the defendant contended that by allowing the second  jury to consider the full range of punishment during the penalty-phase was a violation of the Clause because the first jury had acquitted him of any conduct mandating a higher sentence than that of 25 years.  The appellate court rejected this argument and stated that the Double Jeopardy Clause is inapplicable to non-capital cases because the jury in a non-capital case does not have the requirement to make findings of fact beyond a reasonable doubt and, thus, the Clause is not implicated.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Source:  State v. Edwards, ED83320, 07/10/2007.