Since the issue may arise at the new sentencing proceeding, we take this opportunity to address it in an effort to clarify the trial court's responsibility to properly instruct the jury regarding evidence it may consider in finding aggravating circumstances. He was physically and verbally abusive to her and had threatened her with a gun on the day before the murders after he attempted to kill the Farris' dog. The jury could not have found defendant guilty of felony murder had they found her not guilty of burglary due to the defense of duress. Defendant was aware that Gibbs wanted to reunite with Anne but said that she loved him and wanted to marry him and live in the trailer he shared with Anne. We begin by observing that defendant has waived her right to review of this issue by failing to object to the trial court's omission of the requested instruction.
Having found reversible error in the sentencing phase of the trial, we remand this case for a new capital sentencing proceeding in accordance with N.
Gay-Friendly Bed and Breakfast
Thus, we need not address the State's contentions as this issue is not before us. All three witnesses testified to their belief in defendant's religious sincerity. The State also argues that the request was effectively withdrawn by defense counsel's agreement that the duress instruction was sufficient. As a result of the abuse, the expert believed that defendant was essentially a slave to Gibbs. Farris pleaded with him and Shamika cried. Defendant argues that the jury instructions given by the trial court on the principle of acting in concert, the offense of burglary, the offense of felony murder, and the offense of premeditated and deliberate murder were fundamentally flawed.
Defendant argues that this scenario is identical to that which occurred in Payne 1 and thus is governed by that case. He was physically and verbally abusive to her and had threatened her with a gun on the day before the murders after he attempted to kill the Farris' dog. Thus, we need not address the State's contentions as this issue is not before us. Shortly thereafter he left for work. Defendant first contends that her constitutional right to be present at all stages of her capital trial was violated because the trial judge engaged in ex parte communication with prospective jurors during jury selection. I'm going to kill all of you and then I'm going to kill myself.