Opinion ID: 1059552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: additional constitutional challenge

Text: Lovitt argues that the future dangerousness aggravator is unconstitutionally vague as applied, because this Court has allowed the language of this aggravating factor to be applied in an unfettered manner in several other of the capital murder convictions that the Court has upheld on appeal. We find no merit in this argument, because our determination of the sufficiency of the evidence of future dangerousness in other cases does not provide a basis for reversing the jury's finding of future dangerousness in Lovitt's case. Lovitt's allegation that the evidence in his case of future dangerousness was insufficient as a matter of law must be determined based on the facts of his own case. Thus, the application of the future dangerousness predicate in other cases does not affect the question whether Lovitt's death sentence should be upheld.