 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. McKoy9/7/1988
ces not "found" by the jury and even circumstances which had not been written on the verdict form. Id. at 217, 358 S.E.2d at 25-26. We stated that such a procedure would "sanction an invitation to caprice" in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. Id. at 217, 358 S.E.2d at 26. We discussed the concern, often articulated by the United States Supreme Court, that the jury's discretion must be limited to prevent arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty:
"The consideration of mitigating circumstances must be the same as the consideration of aggravating circumstances." There is no reason to confound the jury's decision process with arbitrary, "inarticulable" factors that may be applied in mitigation of a sentence but not in aggravation of it. " he jury may only exercise guided discretion in making the underlying findings required for a recommendation of the death penalty within the 'carefully defined set of statutory criteria that allow them to take into account the nature of the crime and the character of the accused.'"
Id. at 217-18, 358 S.E.2d at 26 (citations omitted); see also State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. at 219, 302 S.E.2d at 157.
Our capital-sentencing procedure allows for individualized sentencing. It allows the jury to find circumstances in mitigation, both submitted circumstances and any other circumstance the jury deems to have mitigating value. It allows the jury to consider all relevant evidence in deciding whether to recommend a sentence of death. Finally, it requires the jury -- before recommending that the defendant be sentenced to death -- to weigh the "found" aggravating and "found" mitigating circumstances and to decide whether the "found" aggravating circumstances, considered with the "found" mitigating circumstances, are sufficiently substantial to call for the death penalty.
In addition to allowing for individualized sentencing, our capital-sentencing procedure also guides the jury's discretion so as to guard against the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty. It requires the State to prove the existence of an
aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires the defendant to prove the existence of a mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence. It then allows the jury to consider only that evidence which is relevant, i.e., the evidence which the jury has unanimously "found," in sentencing the defendant.
Our capital-sentencing procedure thus provides a proper balance between individualized sentencing and guided discretion and therefore, we believe, conforms with federal constitutional requirements.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Mills " ecause of the importance of the issue in Maryland's capital-punishment scheme." Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 393. The decision in Mills thus appears to be statute-specific. This conclusion is further supported by the Court's treatment of three cases immediately after the decision in Mills. The Court denied certiorari in two cases from this state which raised the issue of whether North Carolina's requirement of jury unanimity on the existence of mitigating circumstances is unconstitutional. See State v. Holden, 321 N.C. 125, 362 S.E.2d 513 (1987), cert. denied, U.S. , 100 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1988); State v. Gardner, 311 N.C. 489, 319 S.E.2d 591 (1983), cert. denied, U.S. , 100 L. Ed. 2d 934 (1988). However, in a Maryland case raising the same issue as in Mills, the Court granted certiorari
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.
|
|