holding that trial court did not erroneously exclude expert’s opinion regarding defendant’s susceptibility to coercion because expert reviewed only a portion of interrogation, rendering expert’s opinion “not sufficiently trustworthy”
How later courts described this case
- holding that trial court did not erroneously exclude expert’s opinion regarding defendant’s susceptibility to coercion because expert reviewed only a portion of interrogation, rendering expert’s opinion “not sufficiently trustworthy”
- holding evidence of premeditated first degree murder sufficient where the defendant handcuffed the victim to a tree and choked him to death with a wire and slipknot; the defendant then took the victim’s possessions, was seen shortly after the murder with these possessions, and was ultimately apprehended in another state driving the victim’s vehicle
- imposing death penalty based upon (i)(7) aggravating circumstance where defendant murdered victim by manual and ligature strangulation; defendant had psychological impairments from abuse and neglect, borderline personality disorder, emotional withdrawal, intense anger, inability to maintain enduring relationships; other psychologist felt he was exaggerating his mental condition
- rejecting the argument that there is no meaningful appellate review of death sentences because there is no requirement for written findings concerning mitigating circumstances
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR
Filed May 2, 1994.
Defendant has filed a respectful petition to rehear which the Court has considered and finds that the petition does not contain new material or argument which warrants reconsideration.
The petition to rehear is denied.
REID, C.J., and DROWOTA and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.
DAUGHTREY, J., not participating.