Title: In re: Proportionality Review Project

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). O'Hern, J., writing for a majority of the Court. In all death penalty cases in which the conviction and sentence of death are affirmed on direct appeal, the sentence is then subject to a "proportionality review." That review seeks to ensure that the death penalty is being administered in a rational, non-arbitrary, and evenhanded manner, fairly and with reasonable consistency. In State v. Loftin, a death penalty case decided earlier this year, the Court considered the existing system of proportionality review and determined that several aspects of the process needed to be evaluated. During the pendency of that case, the Court appointed retired Appellate Division Judge Richard S. Cohen as a Special Master. In his report to the Court, the Special Master made a number of findings and recommendations. Additional questions also were raised. As a result, the Court affirmed Loftin's sentence on proportionality review but appointed a new Special Master to investigate and report on issues involving the "universe of cases" to be considered on proportionality review, the "index-of-outcomes" test, the "salient-factors" test, any effect of race on the review process, and the desirability of maintaining proportionality review as a separate proceeding in death penalty cases. The Court selected David S. Baime, a Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division, as the new Master. Judge Baime filed a report with the Court on April 28, 1999. Although he made findings and recommendations in respect of most of the issues identified in the Court's Order of appointment and remand, Judge Baime deferred consideration of the "race effect" issue for the receipt of additional information and analysis. The Court solicited comments on the Master's report from the Attorney General, the County Prosecutors' Association, the Public Defender, and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Oral arguments were heard on June 7, 1999. HELD: Proportionality review seeks to determine only whether a particular death sentence is aberrational and not whether it compares perfectly with other sentences. The Court adopts many of the recommendations of Special Master David S. Baime, P.J.A.D., in respect of modifications to the proportionality review system. These include the appointment of a Standing Master to oversee the system, modifications to the "salient-factors" test, abandonment of the "index-of-outcomes" test for individual review, future consolidation of the proportionality review process into the direct appeal of defendants sentenced to death, and further consideration of possible systemic problems dealing with race after the filing of a supplemental report by Judge Baime in October. 1. The Court accepts Judge Baime's recommendations that a retired judge should be appointed as a Standing Master to supervise the screening, coding, and data collection of "death-eligible" matters for inclusion in the universe of cases. The Standing Master will preside over confidential hearings that relate to the foregoing functions. Criminal Case Managers will provide the Administrative Office of the Courts with additional information that relates to the classification and evaluation of cases. Furthermore, a pilot program will be run in which trial judges would complete questionnaires in potentially death-eligible homicide cases. The Court declined to accept Judge Baime's recommendation that the evidence of capital-murder elements be "overwhelming" to be included in a death-eligible universe. This issue is to be considered further by the Standing Master and the parties. (pp. 17-22) 2. Judge Baime has made several recommendations for modifications to the "salient-factors" test. The Court agrees that organizing of cases by the statutory aggravating factors -- with a few exceptions where subcategories are desirable -- is appropriate. (pp. 22-24) 4. The Court has declined to accept Judge Baime's recommendation that the salient-factors test should be modified to permit the consideration of mitigating factors. (pp.26-27) 5. The Court approves Judge Baime's recommendation that the salient-factors test be used to aid in the selection of cases for the precedent-seeking review portion of proportionality review. The parties will help the Standing Master to determine the cases that the Court should consider. (pp. 27-28) 6. Judge Baime recommended that the "index-of-outcomes" test be abandoned as a part of proportionality review. The test is based on a statistical tool, multiple regression analysis, that requires stable models to ensure its viability. Judge Baime concluded that the models were unstable because they were using data from a relatively small number of cases to explain the effect of too many different factors on the likelihood of receiving the death penalty. The Court finds that there is no reason to retain the test in its present form. (pp. 29-32) 7. Statistical modeling certainly will be needed to examine systemic disproportionality. Judge Baime and his consultants are continuing to attempt to create more reliable models to achieve the goals of systemic proportionality review. He plans to report his results by October 1999. That report will deal with statistical models that address whether race is or is not an impermissible factor in capital-sentencing decisions. (pp. 32-34) 8. Judge Baime also recommended that pending the filing and consideration of his supplemental report, the Court should approve a model jury instruction that reminds a jury that it is not to return a verdict of death unless it would return the same verdict no matter what the race, color, religious beliefs, national origin, or sex of the defendant or victim might be. The Court leaves the formulation of such a charge to the Committee on Capital Causes. In the meantime, trial courts should give an instruction that generally comports with Judge Baime's proposal. (pp.34-35) 9. The next scheduled proportionality reviews will be conducted in accordance with the revised format approved by the Court. In conjunction with its consideration of pending proportionality review matters, the Court will determine when and how to conduct proportionality review consolidated with a defendant's direct appeal. (pp. 35-38). HANDLER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, agrees with the Court that the universe of cases considered in proportionality review must include all defendants who were eligible for the death penalty, whether or not they were capitally prosecuted. He believes, however, that there needs to be some accounting of mitigating factors in the Court's statistical review. In addition, he urges that the Court should define as "proportional" only those sentences that are generally imposed on similar defendants who have committed similar crimes, while recognizing as disproportional those sentences that do not conform, which would always include aberrational sentences. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES POLLOCK, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE O'HERN's opinion. JUSTICE HANDLER has filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 98 September Term 1998 IN RE: PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW PROJECT Argued June 7, 1999 -- Decided August 5, 1999 On review of the Report of Special Master. Claudia Van Wyk, Deputy Public Defender II, and Mordecai D. Garelick, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Paul H. Heinzel, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause on behalf of the Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney). Lawrence S. Lustberg argued the cause on behalf of amici curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey and New Jersey State Conference of NAACP Branches (Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, attorneys). (1) The Special Master shall conduct additional fact-finding concerning the proper scope of the proportionality review universe. The Special Master shall make an independent evaluation of the deathworthiness of a sample of cases previously classified by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as either death-eligible or death ineligible. The "provability" of the selected cases and the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating factors shall be considered and the results compared to the data-coding decisions made by the AOC. If there is a variance between the survey results and the AOC data-coding decisions, possible causes of the variance shall be identified along with recommendations for improved data-coding procedures. The Special Master shall consider whether a questionnaire should be filled out by the judge in each case and used to improve both the data-collection and data-coding process. Alternatively, if the Special Master determines that the intrinsic difficulties and ambiguities of data-coding death-eligible cases cannot be overcome, the Special Master shall consider the impact of anticipated coding errors on the AOC models; (2) The Special Master shall review data coding generally and make recommendations for improvements if appropriate; (3) The Special Master shall attempt to determine, based on projections about the size of the database over time and other relevant considerations, how long it will take before frequency review results can attain a level of statistical reliability; (4) The Special Master shall undertake a review of both the strengths and weaknesses of the index-of-outcomes test and make recommendations whether the statistical models can be modified and improved or whether the index-of outcomes test should be eliminated; (5) The Special Master shall consider methods by which to select a representative number of cases within the group of similar cases for consideration and comparison to the defendant's case in the salient-factors test and precedent-seeking review. The Special Master shall examine alternate case sorting approaches that account for mitigating factors. The Special Master shall assess whether some reduction in the number of case classifications is possible without compromising the principle that only similar cases be compared; (6) The Special Master shall attempt to develop parsimonious statistical models for more reliable regression studies of race effect and shall consider whether the process of purging, i.e., the removal of the indirect effects of race from variables that appear to be unrelated to race, produces results that are useful; (7) The Special Master shall consider Special Master Cohen's recommendation, submitted in State v. Loftin, supra [Loftin II], that the Court appoint a panel of judges to perform periodic assessments of penalty-trial outcomes, along with the composition and mandate of such an independent judicial panel, as independent verification of the culpability ratings derived from the models; (8) The Special Master shall develop a factual record and issue findings concerning the desirability of maintaining proportionality review as a separate proceeding or, alternatively, conducting proportionality review in connection with a capital defendant's direct appeal . . . . SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 98 September Term 1998 IN RE: PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW PROJECT HANDLER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I share the Court's conviction that the universe of cases for proportionality review must include all defendants who, by the nature of their crime, were eligible for the death penalty, whether or not they were capitally prosecuted. Review encompassing all death-eligible cases is necessary to ensure that the death penalty is being administered fairly and consistently in each defendant's case, and is just as essential to monitor and prevent systemic discrimination in the prosecution of capital cases and the imposition of death sentences. I am of the view, therefore, that the legislative amendment limiting the universe to cases in which a death sentence has been imposed, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3e, L. 1992, c. 5 (eff. May 12, 1992), "abolishes proportionality review as a meaningful procedural safeguard." State v. Loftin, 157 N.J. 253, 442 (1999) (Loftin II) (Handler, J., dissenting). As such, the amendment impedes this Court's judicial exercise of appellate review, see id. at 285, and is unconstitutional. The Court continues to delay in deciding the matter. See ante at __ (slip op. at 14); Loftin II, supra, 157 N.J. at 285. I maintain my objection to that delay. See Loftin II, supra, 157 N.J. at 442 (Handler, J. dissenting). I write to express two concerns raised by the Court's review of the recommendations of Special Master David S. Baime presented in the Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court: Proportionality Review Project (Apr. 28, 1999) (Baime Report). NO. A-98 IN RE: PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW PROJECT DECIDED