holding that the trial court erred in denying defendant challenges for cause when three jurors indicated they would impose the death penalty for premeditated or intentional murder
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court erred in denying defendant challenges for cause when three jurors indicated they would impose the death penalty for premeditated or intentional murder
- great risk of death not found where defendant burglarized inhabited family home at night where the defendant did not seek out inhabitants and had no contact with any person other than the child victim he stabbed in order to avoid contact with other sleeping family members
- referencing cases where this aggravator upheld when other persons present were not injured
- “In the majority of the cases in which this aggravator has been upheld, the endangered bystanders who suffered a great risk of death were either in the line of the defendant’s fire or were contemporaneously injured or killed by the defendant.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, P.J.,
concurring specially.
I truly believe in the jury system. There is not a better justice system anywhere in the world than when twelve of your peers make a decision as to a person’s fate. Tmce *1130 a jury of twelve have found Appellant should face the death penalty. I agree with the jury verdict as to death in both cases.
An appellate judge is sworn to uphold the law. Therefore, I must, under the law, concur in the finely written opinion of Judge Strubhar. I do so with great reluctance. The law gives no choice to this Court except to do what we have done and for me to specially concur herein.
Had this jury found that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest or that the defendant would be a continuing threat to society, I would certainly affirm Appellant’s death sentence. However, the jury’s decision as to creating a great risk of death to more than one person just cannot be upheld legally.