Opinion ID: 1589788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Lethal Injection Protocol

Text: ¶ 178. Goff asserts that execution by lethal injection, under the current Mississippi protocol, would violate the First and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution, corresponding provisions of the Mississippi Constitution, and state law. ¶ 179. Goff's claim that Mississippi's method of inflicting death by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment was dispositively rejected in favor of the State by the United States Supreme Court's holding in Baze v. Rees and by this Court's holding in Bennett v. State. In Bennett, this Court stated: On April 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Baze v. Rees , upholding the State of Kentucky's lethal-injection protocol as not being violative of the Eighth Amendment. Baze v. Rees, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008). In so doing, Chief Justice Roberts's plurality opinion announced the standard which we must use to determine whether our method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment. Id. The Supreme Court's plurality found that cruel and unusual punishment occurs where lethal injection as an execution method presents a substantial or objectively intolerable risk of serious harm in light of feasible, readily implemented alternative procedures. Id. at 1531, 1532. However, the analysis was focused on the manner of lethal injection, and did not question the validity of lethal injection or the constitutionality of the death penalty as such. Id. at 1537. The Baze Court held: Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available, one it shares with 35 other States ... [which] if administered as intended ... will result in a painless death. The risks of maladministration ... such as improper mixing of chemicals and improper setting of IVs by trained and experienced personnelcannot be remotely characterized as objectively intolerable. Kentucky's decision to adhere to its protocol despite these asserted risks, while adopting safeguards to protect against them, cannot be viewed as probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the Eighth Amendment. Baze, 128 S.Ct. at 1537. For the disposition of other cases uncertain, Justice Roberts clearly stated that [a] State with a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets [the `substantial risk'] standard. Id. at 1537 (emphasis added). If differences exist between Mississippi's execution protocols and those used in Kentucky, then, the inquiry is whether Mississippi's lethal-injection protocol meets Constitutional muster in light of this recent Supreme Court decision. The Fifth Circuit, when considering inmate Dale Leo Bishop's Eighth-Amendment challenge to Mississippi's lethal-injection procedures, recently announced that Mississippi's lethal injection protocol appears to be substantially similar to Kentucky's protocol that was examined in Baze. Walker v. Epps, 287 Fed.Appx. 371, 2008 WL 2796878, 2008 U.S.App. LEXIS 15547 at [] (5th Cir.Miss. July 21, 2008). We agree with the Fifth Circuit's analysis, and hold that Bennett's Eighth Amendment challenge to the lethal injection protocol in Mississippi is without merit. Bennett v. State, 990 So.2d at 160-61. ¶ 180. We find no merit in Goff's Eighth-Amendment argument. ¶ 181. Goff's First-Amendment claim is procedurally barred, as Goff offers no discussion and cites no authority in support of this claim. See Byrom, 863 So.2d at 891 (appellants alleging errors must present us with a complete record highlighting the alleged errors supported by citation to relevant case law); Randolph, 852 So.2d at 558 (in the absence of meaningful argument and citation of authority this Court will generally not consider the assignment of error). ¶ 182. Procedural bar notwithstanding, for reasons articulated in Spicer, 973 So.2d at 207-08, Goff's First-Amendment claim is wholly without merit.