finding that modern death penalty statute satisfied Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and MDR Article 25 but remanding for re-sentencing because death sentence had been applied arbitrarily
How later courts described this case
- finding that modern death penalty statute satisfied Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and MDR Article 25 but remanding for re-sentencing because death sentence had been applied arbitrarily
- explaining Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976); and the General Assembly's reaction to these cases
- explaining that in capital cases, Section 414(e) directs the Court to consider the factors enumerated therein in addition to those otherwise properly raised before the Court on appeal
- explaining that the jury is not obligated to believe the defendant's version of events, but is permitted to draw its own conclusions based on the other evidence presented
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cole, J.,
concurring:
I concur in the result, there being, in my opinion, no necessity to reach the constitutional issues in the case.
Davidson, J., concurring:
I concur in the result.