cert. granted Dec. 6, 1993, ___ U.S. ___ [126 L.Ed.2d 563, 114 S.Ct. 598]
How later courts described this case
- cert. granted Dec. 6, 1993, ___ U.S. ___ [126 L.Ed.2d 563, 114 S.Ct. 598]
- “Nothing in the record indicates 20240147-CA 12 2025 UT App 108 State v. Hovinghoff that counsel lacked a plausible, tactical reason for asking [prospective jurors] few or no follow-up questions. Indeed, counsel might have determined from the demeanor of these prospective jurors that additional questioning would be futile.” (citation omitted)
- "The settlement, augmentation, and correction process does not allow parties to create proceedings, make records, or litigate issues which they neglected to pursue earlier."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Harris, 43 Cal. 4th 1269 (2008)
4 Cal.4th 569, 583 (Tuilaepa), disapproved on another ground in People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1311
The opinion
KENNARD, J.
I concur in the result and the reasoning of the majority opinion except for its conclusion that, assuming we must evaluate the aggravating factors in Penal Code section 190.3 to determine whether they are impermissibly vague in violation of the Eighth Amendment, factor (i) (‘the age of the defendant at the time of the crime”) is not vague. I see no need to resolve this issue here. Because defendant’s age played little role in either the evidence or the argument at the penalty phase, any vagueness in the trial court’s instruction to the jury on factor (i) was harmless under any standard.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 10, 1993.