 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. McKoy9/7/1988
character, and condition of the offender," the court determined that at least one of three specified mitigating circumstances had been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 607, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 991-92. The plurality opinion concluded that " he limited range of mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer under the Ohio statute is incompatible with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments" because it "preclude consideration of relevant mitigating factors." Id. at 608, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 992. Therefore, the Court reversed
the imposition of the death penalty and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 608-09, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 992.
In Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1982), the Supreme Court applied the Lockett rule that "the sentencer . . . not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death." Id. at 110, 71 L. Ed. 2d at 8 (quoting Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 990) (emphasis in original). The trial judge in Eddings had stated that, as a matter of law, he could not take into consideration that the defendant had come from a violent background. Eddings, 455 U.S. at 112-13, 71 L. Ed. 2d at 9-10. The Supreme Court held that "the sentencer [may not] refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence." Id. at 114, 71 L. Ed. 2d at 11 (emphasis in original). The Court reversed the death sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 117, 71 L. Ed. 2d at 12.
In Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. , 100 L. Ed. 2d 384, the Supreme Court applied the Lockett-Eddings doctrine in holding that because the instructions to the jury on mitigating circumstances were potentially misleading, " he possibility that the . . . jury conducted its task improperly . . . great enough to require resentencing." Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 399. The verdict form in Mills had three sections:
Section I stated:
Based upon the evidence we unanimously find that each of the following aggravating circumstances which is marked "yes" has been proven Beyond a reasonable doubt and each aggravating circumstance which is marked "no" has not been proven Beyond a reasonable doubt[.]
Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 400. Following this paragraph was a list of the submitted aggravating circumstances, each of which was followed by two blanks -- one for a "yes" answer, the other for a "no" answer. Section I concluded:
(If one or more of the above are marked "yes," complete Section II. If all of the above are marked "no" do not complete Sections II and III.)
Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 400-01.
Section II stated:
Based upon the evidence we unanimously find that each of the following mitigating circumstances which is marked "yes" has been proven to exist by A preponderance of the evidence and each mitigating circumstance marked "no" has not been proven By a preponderance of the evidence[.]
Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 401. As in the first section, the proposed mitigating circumstances, numbered 1 through 7, were listed, each with blanks for "yes" and "no." Number 8 read, "Other mitigating circumstances exist, as set forth below." Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 401-02. Section II concluded:
(If one or more of the above in Section II have been marked "yes," complete Section III. If all of the above in Section II are marked "no," you do not complete Section III.)
Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 402.
Section III read:
Based on the e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|