holding that where sufficient evidence supports a trial court's in camera ruling that a defendant's statements are voluntary and admissible, this Court will not disturb that ruling
How later courts described this case
- holding that where sufficient evidence supports a trial court's in camera ruling that a defendant's statements are voluntary and admissible, this Court will not disturb that ruling
- affirming the jury’s rejection of an insanity defense in spite of expert testimony as to the defendant’s “brain disorder combining severe depression with psychotic symptoms” and relying on circumstantial evidence regarding the crime and the defendant’s statements to the police to support this conclusion
- describing approaches adopted by various states
- "We find it reasonable to toll the IADA limits where the defendant requests or agrees to, and benefits from, the delay.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LILE, Judge:
concurs in part/dissents in part.
¶ 1 I agree that Appellant’s conviction should be affirmed. I also believe that his sentence should be affirmed. All of the mitigating evidence was presented to the jury and I have great respect for their determination. The jury knew far more about Appellant than this Court can ever glean from a record. I would affirm the sentence of death.