holding the petitioner “has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the failure of trial counsel to object to the jury instruction regarding reasonable doubt. [The defendant] has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s alleged error, his verdict would have been different.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding the petitioner “has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the failure of trial counsel to object to the jury instruction regarding reasonable doubt. [The defendant] has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s alleged error, his verdict would have been different.” (citation omitted)
- rejecting the petitioner’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction where the petitioner failed to establish “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s alleged error, his verdict would have been different”
- holding that "[ijmposition of the death penalty requires a unanimous jury. The entire jury must find aggravating circumstances unanimously.”
- holding that jury instructions must be read as a whole to support a claim of error, not in separate portions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION
Justice NIGRO.
I dissent, as I agree with Justice Saylor that Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s instructions as to vicarious criminal liability.