Opinion ID: 1494221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to a Jury Trial as Applied to the Penalty Hearing under the Delaware Death Penalty Statute

Text: We note at the outset that the Delaware death penalty statute, like those of several other states, expressly contemplates non-unanimous and non-binding jury recommendations. [488] We must therefore determine whether a defendant's right to a jury trial under Article I. Section 4 of the Delaware Constitution necessarily implies a right to a unanimous jury verdict on all facts. [489] The Delaware Constitution guarantees that [t%]rial by jury shall be as heretofore. [490] This phrase incorporates by reference the common law right to trial by jury, and any analysis of the right to a trial by jury, as it is guaranteed by the Delaware Constitution, requires an examination of the common law. [491] Based on a common law analysis, this Court has previously found that under the Delaware Constitution, [u]nanimity of the jurors is ... required to reach a verdict. [492] This jurisprudence relates to the determination of guilt. Undertaking a similar inquiry in State v. Cohen, [493] however, we held that the right to trial by jury under the Delaware Constitution does not guarantee the right ... to have a jury determine punishment in a capital case. [494] Instead, the Cohen Court found that the jury's historic role was limited to that of a trier of facts, determining guilt or innocence.  [495] We therefore conclude that the jury is not required to return a unanimous finding of an aggravating factor in its advisory role during the penalty phase. Although a jury's advisory report on statutory aggravating circumstances necessarily requires the jury to resolve factual disputes, this exercise is fundamentally different from a jury's fact-finding role in the guilt phase under the common law. [496] First, as noted earlier, a jury at common law was charged with finding facts only in connection with a determination of guilt or innocence. [497] Here, the jury unanimously determined Capano's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By contrast, under Delaware's death penalty statute, a jury makes only recommendations relevant to punishment. Second, a jury's verdict at common law is binding  rather than advisory  as long as its conclusions are rational. [498] Under the Delaware death penalty statute, however, a jury in the penalty phase functions only in an advisory capacity and as the conscience of the community. [499] Put differently, Section 4209 assigns to the trial judge the ultimate responsibility for determining whether the defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. [500] Based on these considerations, we conclude that a jury's advisory report under the Delaware death penalty statute does not fit within the jury's common law role as fact-finder. As a result, the jury's recommendations under Section 4209 are not subject to the unanimity requirement, and Capano is therefore not entitled to a unanimous jury finding as to the existence of a statutory aggravating factor before the trial judge imposes a death sentence.