THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 17 - CHAPTER 303
Go to Volume 17 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 303 Table of Contents

303.7 Death Penalty: Specific Mitigating Factors

    303.7.6 Death Penalty: Youth Or Immaturity As Mitigation

    303.7.6.1 Age As Mitigation: Immaturity, Not Just Chronological Age, Must Be Considered
    303.7.6.2 Jury Should Compare Defendant's Age With The Statutory Age When Death Eligibility Begins

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 17 - CHAPTER 303

RATIONALE: While chronological age is often included as a possible mitigating factor, the jury may not understand that it is not only chronological age, but immaturity that must be considered under this factor.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: It is well recognized that youth, as measured by chronological age, may be a mitigating factor. (See e.g., Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987) 481 US 393, 397 [107 SCt 1821; 95 LEd2d 347] [youth at the time of crime mitigating]; Jones v. Thigpen (5th Cir. 1986) 788 F2d 1101, 1103 [age 17]; Norris v. State (FL 1983) 429 So2d 688, 690 [age 19]; Hitchcock v. State (FL 1982) 413 So2d 741, 747 [age 20 mitigating]; State v. Lindsey (LA 1989) 543 So2d 886, 905-07 [youth]; State v. Holtan (NE 1977) 250 NW2d 876, 880 [youth or extreme age as statutory mitigation].)

    However, chronological age is not the sole measure of age as mitigation. It has been recognized that age may be a mitigating factor as a result of the defendant's psychological immaturity. (See e.g., People v. Cox (CA 1991) 53 C3d 618, 675 [280 CR 692].) For example, in Johnson v. State (MD 1998) 703 A2d 1267, 1277 the trial court committed reversible error by utilizing chronological age as the sole definition when considering the applicability of a mitigating factor of youthful age. Other factors to be considered include: (1) prior criminal conduct; (2) home environment; (3) marital status; (4) degree of maturity; and (5) alcohol and drug abuse. (Johnson, 703 A2d at 1276; see also Mahn v. State (FL 1989) 714 So2d 391, 400 [defendant's unrefuted, long-term substance abuse, chronic mental and emotional instability, and extreme passivity in the face of unremitting physical and mental abuse, provided the essential link between his youthful age and immaturity which should have been considered as a mitigating factor]; State v. Holden (NC 1994) 450 SE2d 878, 882-85 [mental age served as a statutory mitigating circumstance, rather than chronological age]; State v. Zonign (NC 1988) 498 SE2d 611, 612 [same].)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Death Penalty Macro 13.11].

See Capital Punishment Handbook [4.8.2.2a. Youth/Family History: Authorities].

    The youthful age of the defendant at the time of the crime [may be a mitigating circumstance]. A defendant who is under the age of 18 at the time of the crime cannot be sentenced to death. Youthful age is a flexible and relative concept and is not measured solely by chronological age. Youth, in its ordinary meaning, is equated with immaturity. It is for you to determine if the defendant who was (____ age) at the time of the crime, was of youthful age. In making that determination, you must consider such factors as the defendant’s chronological age, mental development, learning, and life experience, as they bear on the defendant’s degree of maturity.

[Source: MARYLAND CRIMINAL PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS, MPJI-Cr CR7:00 § IV(5) [Death Penalty] (Micpel, 1999).]

    Age is a flexible and relative concept. The chronological age of a defendant is not always the determinative factor.  The mitigating effect of the age of the defendant is for you to decide from all of the facts and circumstances. 

[Cf. NORTH CAROLINA PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, NCPI-Crim 150.10 [Death Penalty–Instructions To Jury At Separate Sentencing Proceeding] ¶ 7, p.88 (TRCC, 1999).]

    The defendant's psychological immaturity can be a factor in mitigation.

[Source: NCJIC.]

    Under this factor you may consider the defendant's psychological immaturity in mitigation.

[Source: NCJIC.]

    You must consider any evidence of the defendant's psychological immaturity. Psychological immaturity can be a mitigating factor but it is up to you, in your discretion to decide whether it is a mitigating factor in this case and, if so, how much weight it should be given.

[Source: NCJIC.]

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 17 - CHAPTER 303

RATIONALE: Without an instruction which explains that death eligibility begins at age 18 the jury may improperly assume that death eligibility begins at a younger age thus diminishing the mitigating weight of the defendant's age in comparison.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: The 8th and 14th Amendments require that the jury consider and give effect to youth as a mitigating factor. (See Graham v. Collins (1993) 506 US 461, 471-78 [113 SCt 892; 122 LEd2d 260].) However, absent clarification the jury may believe that age is a mitigating factor only where the defendant is extremely young. (E.g., less than 18 years old.) Hence, when appropriate special instruction on this issue should be given to assure that defendant's 8th and 14th Amendment rights are protected.

    The federal death penalty statute addresses the issue of age by identifying as a mitigating factor the fact that "[t]he defendant was youthful, although not under the age of 18." (21 USC 848(m)(5).)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Death Penalty Macro 13.11].

    In weighing the defendant's age you should consider that no person is eligible for the death penalty or life without parole unless he or she was at least 18 years old at the time of the killing.

[Source: NCJIC.]

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:

    Defendant was ___ years when he committed the crimes of which you have found him guilty. If defendant had been under 18 years old when the crimes were committed, he would be subject to neither life imprisonment without possibility of parole nor the death penalty. You must consider the defendant's age only as a mitigating factor, to be accorded whatever weight you believe it deserves; you may not under any circumstances consider defendant's age as an aggravating factor.

[Source: People v. Marshall (CA 1990) 50 C3d 907, 930 [269 CR 269].]

    It is a mitigating factor that the defendant was youthful, although not under the age of 18.

[Source: 21 USC 848(m)(5).]

    The youthful age of the defendant at the time of the crime [may be a mitigating circumstance]. A defendant who is under the age of 18 at the time of the crime cannot be sentenced to death. Youthful age is a flexible and relative concept and is not measured solely by chronological age. Youth, in its ordinary meaning, is equated with immaturity. It is for you to determine if the defendant who was (____ age) at the time of the crime, was of youthful age. In making that determination, you must consider such factors as the defendant’s chronological age, mental development, learning, and life experience, as they bear on the defendant’s degree of maturity.

[Source: MARYLAND CRIMINAL PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS, MPJI-Cr CR7:00 § IV(5) [Death Penalty] (Micpel, 1999).]