Opinion ID: 1060172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Standard of Proof for Future Dangerousness

Text: Roach argues that, because this Court has never reversed a death sentence based on insufficiency of evidence of future dangerousness, Virginia cases articulate no standards to confine the reach of that sentencing factor. Roach contends that such standards must be articulated. We disagree, because the conclusion Roach urges ignores the central purpose of Code § 19.2-264.2, that of individualized consideration of the defendant and the crime committed. Under the direction of Code § 19.2-264.2, the trier of fact may not impose the death penalty unless it finds future dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt, upon consideration of all relevant evidence of the defendant's background, as well as the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced. This individualized consideration necessarily precludes the articulation of precise requirements for a finding of future dangerousness. Moreover, a defendant is protected from an unsupported finding of future dangerousness by the right to appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of that finding.