Although death penalty statutes vary from State to State, one common characteristic is that the trier of fact must find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances. A primary difficulty arises when the factfinder finds one valid aggravating circumstance while also finding and considering one or more invalid aggravating factors. The U.S. courts of appeals have divided on this issue and the Supreme Court has not yet resolved it. In Zant v. Stephens, however, the U.S. Supreme Court of requested the Supreme Court of Georgia to explain its position that the invalidity of one statutory aggravating circumstance does not impair the death sentence. Subsequently, a unanimous Georgia court answered this certified question, reaffirming the death sentence in that case. Godfrey v. Georgia stands squarely for the proposition that a sentence of death cannot stand if it is based entirely on an invalid aggravating circumstance. The difficulty arises when the factfinder relies on at least one valid statutory circumstance in combination with one or more invalid aggravating factors. There are two specific instances where this problem has arisen. In one case, the sentencer has based the decision in part on an aggravating factor not specified in the statute, and in another case, one of the aggravating factors found by the sentencer was specified in the statute but was unconstitutionally broad or vague. Since the balancing process in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors is crucial in deciding upon whether to impose capital punishment, a finding that even one aggravating factor upon which a death sentence is imposed is invalid should keep the sentence from standing. A total of 126 footnotes are provided.