holding that “[p]sychiatry is an extremely uncertain field dealing with the mysteries of the human mind where expert opinions can be expected to and do differ widely”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[p]sychiatry is an extremely uncertain field dealing with the mysteries of the human mind where expert opinions can be expected to and do differ widely”
- noting that a statute in conflict with the Rules of Evidence is invalid
- noting a capital sentencing statement must include, among other things, "the trial court's personal conclusion that the sentence is appropriate punishment for this offender and this crime"
- holding as irrelevant a seven-sentence victim impact statement by deceased's uncle concerning the impact of the murder on the family
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded on other grounds by Allen v. State, 2000 Ind. LEXIS 1075 (2000)
3) the death penalty is disproportionate and vindictive because it carries no deterrent value (rejected in Ritchie, 809 N.E.2d at 263 (citing Evans v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1251, 1264 (Ind.1990))); (4) it is imposed arbitrarily and capriciously with undue risk for discrimination and mistake (rejected in Corcoran v. State, 739 N.E.2d 649, 651-53 (Ind.2000), reh'g granted, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind.2005); and Harrison v. State,…
The opinion
SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring in result.
I join in all of the Court's opinion save for the declaration that the trial judge committed error by allowing Stacy Forsee's uncle to tell the jury about the impact of these grisly murders on the family. Indiana is not a safer place, or a place of greater justice, by virtue of the Court's declaration that what such victims have to say is "irrelevant."