Opinion ID: 1790946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Death is a Disproportionate Penalty in This Case.

Text: ¶ 48. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3)(c), we must consider whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7) (Supp. 2001), for a defendant to be given the death penalty, certain factors must be met: (7) In order to return and impose a sentence of death the jury must make a written finding of one or more of the following: (a) The defendant actually killed; (b) The defendant attempted to kill; (c) The defendant intended that a killing take place; (d) The defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed. ¶ 49. The United States Supreme Court, in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 788-801, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), required that the imposition of the death penalty be consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The death penalty cannot be given to an aider and abettor who has not killed, attempted to kill, or contemplated that life would be taken. ¶ 50. The record shows that, after Gentry had been hit in the head with the hammer for the first time, Bishop chased after him and brought him back. When Bishop saw Gentry hit with the hammer he knew deadly force was being used. When he ran Gentry down and held Gentry as he was being struck by Jessie, he became more of a principal in the crime. A jury could have easily found that Bishop killed, intended to kill, or at least contemplated that deadly force would be used. This case is not like a robbery where someone is killed on impulse. Bishop took an active role in the killing. ¶ 51. All of these facts show that Bishop's involvement was sufficient to justify the death sentence, even, assuming arguendo, that the actual killer did not receive the death sentence. [10] See Smith v. State, 724 So.2d 280, 304 (Miss.1998) (citing Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1268 (Miss.1995); Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 479 (Miss.1984); Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 656 (Miss.1983)). ¶ 52. We affirmatively find that Bishop contemplated that lethal force would be used and that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the sentences imposed in similar cases. See attached appendix of death penalty cases decided by this Court.