Opinion ID: 1279670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: appellate review of death sentence

Text: RCW 10.95.100 requires this court to review all sentences imposing death. One question this court must answer in this mandatory review is whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury's affirmative finding to the question posed by RCW 10.95.060(4): `Having in mind the crime of which the defendant has been found guilty, are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency?' Defendant argues that in order for this court's review to be meaningful, the jury must state what mitigating circumstances it found. Since the jury in the present case did not do so, defendant argues, this court cannot review the evidence to determine whether the jury was correct in answering yes to the question posed by RCW 10.95.060(4). [17] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has answered such a contention as follows: Appellant makes a related argument that, because the jury is not required to indicate, in writing or otherwise, the mitigating circumstances that it finds to exist, this Court will not be able to properly perform its appellate duties. Such argument assumes that this Court is not able to review the record of the trial and sentencing proceedings, which is assuredly not the case. We have reviewed in this case, as we will in the future, the entire record and will evaluate similar cases on the basis of the evidence presented as to mitigating circumstances. Thus, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing defense counsel's request to poll the jury as to which mitigating circumstances it found. Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 63-64, 454 A.2d 937 (1982). We agree. By reviewing the record we found that there was substantial evidence to justify the jury's verdict.