concluding that the court could not determine whether an identifiable underrepresentation is the result of systematic exclusion because the defendant did not provide information 5 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court that a specific group was systematically excluded
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the court could not determine whether an identifiable underrepresentation is the result of systematic exclusion because the defendant did not provide information 5 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court that a specific group was systematically excluded
- finding that even where the defendant had changed his goals and behavior in prison, that was not enough to find that the defendant was a model prisoner and was therefore not a mitigating circumstance
- finding no error when the trial court determined that the witnesses’ identification of defendant was reliable under the totality of the circumstances
- holding that the giving of a felony murder instruction is not a relevant mitigating circumstance when the defendant acted alone to kill the victim
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229 (2001)
171 Ariz. 576, 600 (1992), overruled on other grounds by State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229
The opinion
FELDMAN, Chief Justice, specially concurring:
In cases imposing the death penalty, we conduct a proportionality review to determine whether the death sentence is “excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 196 , 560 P.2d 41, 51 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977).
We have reviewed cases involving comparable crimes, and conclude that Defendant’s sentence is not disproportiopate to the sentences imposed in those cases. See, e.g., State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232 , 762 P.2d 519 (1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3200 , 105 L.Ed.2d 708 (1989); State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382 , 724 P.2d 1 (1986); State v. Roscoe, 145 Ariz. 212 , 700 P.2d 1312 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1094 , 105 S.Ct. 2169 , 85 L.Ed.2d 525 (1985).
JAMES DUKE CAMERON and FRANK X. GORDON, JJ., concur.