 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. McKoy9/7/1988
t look at that aspect individually and in the context of the whole.
In the case now before us, the verdict form in the sentencing phase had four sections:
The first section, Issue One, listed the submitted aggravating circumstances and asked whether the jury unanimously found
from the evidence the existence of any of those circumstances. The jury unanimously found the two aggravating circumstances submitted.
The second section, Issue Two, listed the submitted mitigating circumstances and asked whether the jury unanimously found from the evidence the existence of any of those circumstances. Of the eight mitigating circumstances submitted, the jury answered "yes" to two and "no" to six, including the "catchall" (" ny other circumstance or circumstances arising from the evidence which you the jury deem to have mitigating value").
The third section read:
Answer Issue Three if you answered Issue Two "yes." If you answered Issue Two, "no," skip Issue Three and answer Issue Four.
Issue Three stated:
Issue Three : Do you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstance or circumstances found by you is, or are, insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by you?
Answer :
The fourth section read:
If you answer Issue Three, "no," indicate life imprisonment under "recommendation as to punishment." If you answer Issue Three, "yes," proceed to Issue Four.
Issue Four stated:
Do you unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by you is, or are, sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of the death penalty when considered with the mitigating circumstance or circumstances found by you?
Answer :
The jury answered "yes" to Issues Three and Four and returned a recommendation of the death penalty.
Our capital-sentencing procedure, as this case shows, differs in two significant ways from Maryland's procedure:
First, the instructions to the jury as to when it must impose the death penalty are different. Maryland's procedure required the jury to impose the death penalty if it "found" at least one aggravating circumstance and did not "find" any mitigating circumstances. It also required the jury to impose the death penalty if it unanimously found that the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Issue Three here requires the jury to weigh the "found" mitigating circumstances against the "found" aggravating circumstances. In contrast to the Maryland procedure, however, it does not mandate the death penalty where there are no mitigating circumstances and at least one aggravating circumstance, nor does it mandate the death penalty if the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Rather, it requires the jury then to answer Issue Four. Issue Four ensures that a jury may return a recommendation of life imprisonment if it feels that the aggravating circumstances are not sufficiently substantial to call for the death penalty, even if it has found several aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances. Maryland's capital-sentencing procedure, which the Supreme Court found constitutionally infirm in Mills, did not include a section equivalent to Issue Four here.
Second, in North Carolina evidence in effect becomes legally irrelevant to prove mitigation if the defendant fails to prove to the satisfaction of all the jurors that such evidence supports the finding of a mitigating factor. "Each circums
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.
|
|