Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2026)
Jury to determine punishment in capital cases in separate sentencing proceeding; aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of capital murder or other capital offense, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, or life imprisonment; however, a sentence of death cannot be imposed if the defendant was not at least eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable. If, through impossibility or inability, the trial jury is unable to reconvene for a hearing on the issue of penalty, having determined the guilt of the accused, the trial judge may summon a jury to determine the issue of the imposition of the penalty. If the trial jury has been waived, or if the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose or may be conducted before the trial judge sitting without a jury if both the State of Mississippi and the defendant agree thereto in writing. In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence, and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. However, this subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Mississippi. The state and the defendant and the defendant's counsel shall be permitted to present arguments for or against the sentence of death.
- (2) After hearing all the evidence, the jury shall deliberate on the following matters:
- (a) Whether sufficient factors exist as enumerated in subsection (7) of this section;
- (b) Whether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5) of this section;
- (c) Whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (6) of this section, which outweigh the aggravating circumstances found to exist; and
- (d) Based on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, or death.
- (3) For the jury to impose a sentence of death, it must unanimously find in writing the following:
- (a) That sufficient factors exist as enumerated in subsection (7) of this section;
- (b) That sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5) of this section;
- (c) That there are insufficient mitigating circumstances, as enumerated in subsection (6), to outweigh the aggravating circumstances ; and
- (d) That the defendant was eighteen (18) years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense.
In each case in which the jury imposes the death sentence, the determination of the jury shall be supported by specific written findings of fact based upon the circumstances in subsections (5) and (6) of this section and upon the records of the trial and the sentencing proceedings. If, after the trial of the penalty phase, the jury does not make the findings requiring the death sentence or life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, or is unable to reach a decision, the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment.
- (4) The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Mississippi within sixty (60) days after certification by the sentencing court of the entire record, unless the time is extended for an additional period by the Supreme Court for good cause shown. The review by the Supreme Court shall have priority over all other cases and shall be heard in accordance with rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.
- (5) Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:
- (a) The capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment.
- (b) The defendant was previously convicted of another capital offense or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.
- (c) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.
- (d) The capital offense was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, sexual battery, unnatural intercourse with any child under the age of twelve (12), or nonconsensual unnatural intercourse with mankind, or felonious abuse or battery of a child in violation of subsection (2) of Section 97-5-39, or the unlawful use or detonation of a bomb or explosive device.
- (e) The capital offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.
- (f) The capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain.
- (g) The capital offense was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.
- (h) The capital offense was committed to influence the policy of a governmental entity by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a governmental entity by mass destruction or assassination.
- (i) The capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.
- (j) The capital offense was committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
- (6) Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:
- (a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.
- (b) The offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
- (c) The victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act.
- (d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital offense committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor.
- (e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.
- (f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.
- (g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.
- (7) In order to return and impose a sentence of death the jury must make a written finding of one or more of the following:
- (a) The defendant actually killed;
- (b) The defendant attempted to kill;
- (c) The defendant intended that a killing take place;
- (d) The defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed.
- (8) For the purposes of this section, to "intimidate" or "coerce" do not include peaceful picketing, boycotts or other nonviolent action.
- (9) This section shall not apply to a juvenile offender who was not at least eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. A juvenile offender convicted of capital murder shall be sentenced pursuant to Section 97-3-21(2).
Laws, 1977, ch. 458, § 2; Laws, 1983, ch. 429, § 2; Laws, 1994, ch. 566, § 1, eff. 7/1/1994.
Amended by Laws, 2024, ch. 526, SB 2022,§ 2, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by Laws, 2013, ch. 556, SB 2223, 1, eff. 7/1/2013.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 419
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Russell v. State, 670 So. 2d 816 (Miss. 1995).
Russell v. State, 670 So. 2d 816 (Miss. 1995). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(h). To rebut the State's attempt to have Burt excused for cause, Russell argued that Burt should not be excluded because he indicated that he would impose the death penalty if the murder was bad enough.”
Timothy Nelson Evans v. State of Mississippi, 226 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2017). “30 Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (Rev. 2015). Evans argues that, under this statute, if the guilt- phase jury is unable to reconvene, the trial judge must summon a sentencing-phase jury, and that the statute should not be read to permit the seating of an alternate juror at the…”
Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307 (Miss. 1997). “Additionally, the judge submitted to the jury the determination of whether Holland actually killed Krystal D.”
Branch v. State, 882 So. 2d 36 (Miss. 2004). “Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101 is facially unconstitutional.”
Stevens v. State, 806 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2001). “In death penalty cases, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5) limits the aggravated circumstances presented in jury determination of death penalty.”
Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704 (Miss. 2003). “2001) this Court held that "[i]t has been held that one who is under a suspended sentence is `under sentence of imprisonment' for purposes of finding the aggravating circumstance listed at Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(a)." Brown was convicted of aggravated assault, sentenced…”
Randall v. State, 806 So. 2d 185 (Miss. 2001). “We relied on our oft stated rule that during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case, the State is limited to offering evidence that is relevant to one of the aggravating circumstances included in Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101. Id. at 885 (citing Jackson v.”
Thorson v. State, 895 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2000). Likewise, the Ring court considered Mississippi's scheme to be part of a majority of states who have responded to its Eighth Amendment decisions and require that juries make the final determination as to the presences of aggravating…”
Edwards v. State, 737 So. 2d 275 (Miss. 1999). “Edwards was tried and sentenced by the jury under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (Supp.1984). This statute is distinctive, for in a capital murder case the jury is not only the fact finder of guilt or innocence, but it also has the power to return a sentence of death upon a verdict…”
Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469 (Miss. 2010). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(b) (Rev.2007).”
Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613 (Miss. 1997). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 allows a jury to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that a murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of felony.”
Berry v. State, 703 So. 2d 269 (Miss. 1997). “He further advances this argument by claiming that Mississippi's sentencing scheme in capital cases comports with the Furman principle through the operation of this State's aggravating circumstances statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 . According to Berry, aggravating…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(1) — 40 cases
Stevens v. State, 806 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2001). “In death penalty cases, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5) limits the aggravated circumstances presented in jury determination of death penalty.”
Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704 (Miss. 2003). “2001) this Court held that "[i]t has been held that one who is under a suspended sentence is `under sentence of imprisonment' for purposes of finding the aggravating circumstance listed at Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(a)." Brown was convicted of aggravated assault, sentenced…”
Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452 (Miss. 2001).
Moffett v. State, 49 So. 3d 1073 (Miss. 2010).
Hodges v. State, 912 So. 2d 730 (Miss. 2005).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(1)(1972) — 1 case
Bennett v. State, 933 So. 2d 930 (Miss. 2006).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(1)(1994) — 1 case
Edwards v. State, 737 So. 2d 275 (Miss. 1999). “Edwards was tried and sentenced by the jury under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (Supp.1984). This statute is distinctive, for in a capital murder case the jury is not only the fact finder of guilt or innocence, but it also has the power to return a sentence of death upon a verdict…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(1994) — 1 case
Edwards v. State, 737 So. 2d 275 (Miss. 1999). “Edwards was tried and sentenced by the jury under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (Supp.1984). This statute is distinctive, for in a capital murder case the jury is not only the fact finder of guilt or innocence, but it also has the power to return a sentence of death upon a verdict…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(2) — 3 cases
Clemons v. State, 535 So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1988).
Crawford v. State, 716 So. 2d 1028 (Miss. 1998).
Fair v. State, 766 So. 2d 787 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(2)(c) — 3 cases
Thorson v. State, 895 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2000). Likewise, the Ring court considered Mississippi's scheme to be part of a majority of states who have responded to its Eighth Amendment decisions and require that juries make the final determination as to the presences of aggravating…”
Jordan v. State, 918 So. 2d 636 (Miss. 2005).
Crawford v. State, 716 So. 2d 1028 (Miss. 1998).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(2002) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 877 A.2d 433 (Pa. 2005).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(3) — 10 cases
Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773 (Miss. 2001).
Scott v. State, 878 So. 2d 933 (Miss. 2004).
Branch v. State, 882 So. 2d 36 (Miss. 2004). “Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101 is facially unconstitutional.”
Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469 (Miss. 2010). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(b) (Rev.2007).”
Keller v. State, 138 So. 3d 817 (Miss. 2014).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(3)(b) — 4 cases
Howard v. State, 945 So. 2d 326 (Miss. 2006).
Lynch v. State, 877 So. 2d 1254 (Miss. 2004).
Scott v. State, 878 So. 2d 933 (Miss. 2004).
Hodges v. State, 912 So. 2d 730 (Miss. 2005).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(3)(c) — 5 cases
Ron Chris Foster v. Robert L. Johnson, Comm'r, Mississippi Dep't of Corr., 293 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2002).
Sullivan v. State, 636 A.2d 931 (Del. 1994).
Willie Lee Richmond v. Samuel A. Lewis, Dir., Arizona Dep't of Corr. & Roger Crist, Superintendent of the Arizona State Prison, 948 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).
Stephen Todd Booker v. Richard L. Dugger, Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 922 F.2d 633 (11th Cir. 1991).
Willie Lee Richmond v. Samuel A. Lewis, Dir., Arizona Dep't of Corr. & Roger Crist, Superintendent of the Arizona State Prison, 921 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1990).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(4)(1994) — 1 case
Jackson v. State, 732 So. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5) — 32 cases
Goff v. State, 14 So. 3d 625 (Miss. 2009).
Cox v. State, 183 So. 3d 36 (Miss. 2016).
Thorson v. State, 895 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2000). Likewise, the Ring court considered Mississippi's scheme to be part of a majority of states who have responded to its Eighth Amendment decisions and require that juries make the final determination as to the presences of aggravating…”
Edwards v. State, 737 So. 2d 275 (Miss. 1999). “Edwards was tried and sentenced by the jury under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (Supp.1984). This statute is distinctive, for in a capital murder case the jury is not only the fact finder of guilt or innocence, but it also has the power to return a sentence of death upon a verdict…”
State v. McDonald, 661 S.W.2d 497 (Mo. 1983).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(a) — 1 case
Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704 (Miss. 2003). “2001) this Court held that "[i]t has been held that one who is under a suspended sentence is `under sentence of imprisonment' for purposes of finding the aggravating circumstance listed at Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(a)." Brown was convicted of aggravated assault, sentenced…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(b) — 14 cases
Randall v. State, 806 So. 2d 185 (Miss. 2001). “We relied on our oft stated rule that during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case, the State is limited to offering evidence that is relevant to one of the aggravating circumstances included in Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101. Id. at 885 (citing Jackson v.”
Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469 (Miss. 2010). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(b) (Rev.2007).”
Hughes v. State, 892 So. 2d 203 (Miss. 2004).
Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773 (Miss. 2001).
Howard v. State, 853 So. 2d 781 (Miss. 2003).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(c) — 6 cases
Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452 (Miss. 2001).
Flowers v. State, 842 So. 2d 531 (Miss. 2003).
Snow v. State, 800 So. 2d 472 (Miss. 2001).
Cox v. State, 183 So. 3d 36 (Miss. 2016).
Porter v. State, 732 So. 2d 899 (Miss. 1999).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(d) — 22 cases
Loden v. State, 971 So. 2d 548 (Miss. 2007).
Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613 (Miss. 1997). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 allows a jury to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that a murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of felony.”
Austin v. State, 784 So. 2d 186 (Miss. 2001).
Walker v. State, 913 So. 2d 198 (Miss. 2005).
Walker v. State, 671 So. 2d 581 (Miss. 1995).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(d)(1994) — 1 case
Manning v. State, 726 So. 2d 1152 (Miss. 1998).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(e) — 13 cases
Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469 (Miss. 2010). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(b) (Rev.2007).”
Thorson v. State, 895 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2000). Likewise, the Ring court considered Mississippi's scheme to be part of a majority of states who have responded to its Eighth Amendment decisions and require that juries make the final determination as to the presences of aggravating…”
Lynch v. State, 877 So. 2d 1254 (Miss. 2004).
Scott v. State, 878 So. 2d 933 (Miss. 2004).
Chase v. State, 645 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 1994).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(f) — 4 cases
Young v. Commonwealth, 50 S.W.3d 148 (Ky. 2001).
Byrom v. State, 863 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2003).
Curtis Giovanni Flowers v. State of Mississippi, 158 So. 3d 1009 (Miss. 2014).
State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327 (Utah 1993).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(g) — 1 case
State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327 (Utah 1993).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(h) — 18 cases
Havard v. State, 928 So. 2d 771 (Miss. 2006).
Stevens v. State, 806 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2001). “In death penalty cases, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5) limits the aggravated circumstances presented in jury determination of death penalty.”
Thorson v. State, 895 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2000). Likewise, the Ring court considered Mississippi's scheme to be part of a majority of states who have responded to its Eighth Amendment decisions and require that juries make the final determination as to the presences of aggravating…”
Howard v. State, 945 So. 2d 326 (Miss. 2006).
Goff v. State, 14 So. 3d 625 (Miss. 2009).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(h)(1994) — 1 case
Williams v. State, 722 So. 2d 447 (Miss. 1998).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(i) — 1 case
Richard Jordan v. Christopher Epps, Comm'r, 756 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2014).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5Xd) — 1 case
John Lewis Washington v. John C. Watkins, Comm'r, Mississippi Dep't of Corr., 655 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir. 1981).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6) — 16 cases
Jordan v. State, 786 So. 2d 987 (Miss. 2001).
Scott v. State, 878 So. 2d 933 (Miss. 2004).
Branch v. State, 882 So. 2d 36 (Miss. 2004). “Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101 is facially unconstitutional.”
Howard v. State, 853 So. 2d 781 (Miss. 2003).
Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112 (Miss. 2015).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(a) — 2 cases
Wilson v. State, 21 So. 3d 572 (Miss. 2009).
Wilson v. State, 21 So. 3d 572 (Miss. 2009).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(b) — 6 cases
Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002).
William L. Wiley v. Steve W. Puckett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, & Mike Moore, Attorney Gen., 969 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1992).
Neal v. Puckett, 239 F.3d 683 (5th Cir. 2001).
Wilson v. State, 21 So. 3d 572 (Miss. 2009).
Wilson v. State, 21 So. 3d 572 (Miss. 2009).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(c) — 1 case
United States v. Beckford, 962 F. Supp. 804 (E.D. Va. 1997).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(d) — 1 case
King v. State, 960 So. 2d 413 (Miss. 2007).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(f) — 2 cases
Lockett v. Puckett, 980 F. Supp. 201 (S.D. Miss. 1997).
Hill v. Thigpen, 667 F. Supp. 314 (N.D. Miss. 1987).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(g) — 1 case
Dalton Prejean v. Frank Blackburn, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 743 F.2d 1091 (5th Cir. 1984).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7) — 41 cases
Lynch v. State, 877 So. 2d 1254 (Miss. 2004).
Smith v. State, 724 So. 2d 280 (Miss. 1998).
Gray v. State, 887 So. 2d 158 (Miss. 2004).
Howard v. State, 945 So. 2d 326 (Miss. 2006).
Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613 (Miss. 1997). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 allows a jury to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that a murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of felony.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7)(1994) — 1 case
Watts v. State, 733 So. 2d 214 (Miss. 1999).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7)(a) — 5 cases
Stevens v. State, 806 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2001). “In death penalty cases, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5) limits the aggravated circumstances presented in jury determination of death penalty.”
Gray v. State, 728 So. 2d 36 (Miss. 1998).
Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112 (Miss. 2015).
Stevens v. State, 806 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2001).
Timothy Robert Ronk v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2015).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7)(d) — 3 cases
Randall v. State, 806 So. 2d 185 (Miss. 2001). “We relied on our oft stated rule that during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case, the State is limited to offering evidence that is relevant to one of the aggravating circumstances included in Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101. Id. at 885 (citing Jackson v.”
Corrothers v. State, 148 So. 3d 278 (Miss. 2014).
Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112 (Miss. 2015).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(b) — 1 case
Howard v. State, 945 So. 2d 326 (Miss. 2006).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(l)(1972) — 1 case
Bennett v. State, 933 So. 2d 930 (Miss. 2006).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.