holding that for fundamental error to exist, court “must find that [the error] so prejudiced the defendant’s rights as to make a fair trial impossible.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that for fundamental error to exist, court “must find that [the error] so prejudiced the defendant’s rights as to make a fair trial impossible.”
- explaining that the reviewing court looks to “the role of non-statutory aggravating matters” in the judge’s sentencing statement
- requiring a specific showing that a sentence was improperly influenced by a defendant’s exercise of his right to a jury trial
- noting appellate recourse not available for review of alleged trial misconduct when complaining party failed to timely object at trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I join in the Court’s decision to remand, largely because meticulous attention to capital cases at an early stage saves a good deal of effort later on.
I read Judge Gull’s statements about Corcoran’s multiple murders as explanations about why she gave high weight to the (b)(8) aggravator and I would be willing to affirm her on that basis, as it takes little analysis to conclude that four killings make for a weighty aggravating circumstance. Nevertheless, I agree that it is worth clarifying now that only statutory aggravating circumstances are being considered.