holding that argument about facts not in evidence is impermissible
How later courts described this case
- holding that argument about facts not in evidence is impermissible
- considering the significance of the hearsay testimony in conjunction with State's extensive evidence, hearsay, but harmless
- finding strangulation was heinous atrocious and cruel
- body on autopsy table to show how tape had covered nose, how rope had crushed larynx, how tightly wrists and ankles had been bound, livor on dependent side
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I have consistently urged this Court that every accused in a capital murder case is entitled to have the jury instructed that, irrespective of the proof, it has the discretion to return a verdict of life imprisonment.
While these efforts have been unavailing, it is my view this is a principle so deeply imbedded in the history of judicial decisions in our state, we should adhere to it. Respectfully, therefore, I again dissent from the majority's affirming on this assignment.