stating that “Rule 10 functions as an important vehicle to insure that errors are not ‘built into’ the record, thereby causing unnecessary appellate review”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “Rule 10 functions as an important vehicle to insure that errors are not ‘built into’ the record, thereby causing unnecessary appellate review”
- emphasis in sentencing is on the circumstances of the crime and the character of the criminal
- defendant’s boasting to fellow inmates that he had enjoyed killing victim, who had begged for his life, was evidence of “conscienceless and pitiless murder inflicting psychological torture”
- indicating the impropriety in arguing that the death penalty is divinely inspired
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice MARTIN
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion that holds the solicitor’s argument, improperly placing the burden of proof on defendants with respect to the jury’s recommendation of life imprisonment, was error but not prejudicial. I find it to be prejudicial error. This error requires a new sentencing hearing.
Otherwise, I concur in the well-reasoned majority opinion.
Justice FRYE joins in this opinion.