rejecting claim that death penalty was disproportionate because others who committed worse crimes were not given death since “the Constitution mandates that capital sentencing be individualized, with a focus on the defendant and his crime. That other defendants who have committed other crimes received different sentences does not mean St. Clair's sentence violates the Constitution[]”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting claim that death penalty was disproportionate because others who committed worse crimes were not given death since “the Constitution mandates that capital sentencing be individualized, with a focus on the defendant and his crime. That other defendants who have committed other crimes received different sentences does not mean St. Clair's sentence violates the Constitution[]”
- explaining that courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that reversible error occurs when the jury instructions fail to require written findings as to mitigation
- holding “St. Clair cannot claim he was prejudiced by the giving of an instruction that he requested.”
- holding that “issues decided in earlier appeals should not be revisited in subsequent ones[]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CUNNINGHAM, J.,
concurring:
I fully concur with Justice Noble’s excellent opinion. I only write to add the following to our analysis on harmless error. On two separate occasions — the trials of *659 the Appellant in 1998 and 2005 — juries have sentenced the Appellant to death. Lisa Hill did not testify in either of those trials. I cannot imagine more persuasive proof that her testimony in this case was< harmless.