Case Name: CHRISTENSON v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1992-12-02
Citations: 262 Ga. 638
Docket Number: S92P1078
Parties: CHRISTENSON v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Benham, J., who dissents.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 262
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
S92P1078.
CHRISTENSON v. THE STATE.
(423 SE2d 252)

Opinion:
Fletcher Justice
In Christenson v. State, 261 Ga. 80 (402 SE2d 41) (1991), we affirmed Christenson's conviction for murder and armed robbery, but remanded the case to the trial court for further hearing on two penalty-phase issues in this death-penalty case. Specifically, we directed the court on remand to determine (1) whether the district attorney's questions to the defendant's character witnesses were based on reliable information supported by admissible evidence, and (2) whether the defendant's confession to an extrinsic crime was voluntary and admissible in this case. Id. at 90-92.
On remand, the court conducted the required hearing and set forth its detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a 19-page order.
1. The proceedings on remand afforded the defendant a full and fair opportunity to address the issues contemplated by our remand.
2. The record supports the findings of the remand court and its conclusion that the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant's sentencing-phase witnesses was proper and that the defendant's confession to an extrinsic crime was properly admitted in evidence in this case.
3. As we held previously, the evidence supports the jury's finding that the offense of murder was committed during the commission of armed robbery. OCGA § 17-10-30 (b) (2). Now that we have the benefit of the proceedings on remand, we find that Christenson's death sentence was not imposed as the result of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factor. OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (1). His death sentence is neither excessive nor disproportionate to penalties imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (3). The similar cases listed in the Appendix support the imposition of a death sentence in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Benham, J., who dissents.