Opinion ID: 2357685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: , (e), (f)

Text: Appellant argues that the statute unconstitutionally places the burden of proof to show mitigation on the accused; that the imposition of the death penalty violates Article 16 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; that the sentencing jury has too much discretion; that the sentencing jury does not have sufficient discretion. These arguments were raised, considered, and rejected in Tichnell I and, as we stated in Johnson v. State, 292 Md. 405, 436, 439 A.2d 542, 560 (1982), as regards the first two contentions: Both arguments presented here were thoroughly considered and rejected, however, in ... Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 720-34, 415 A.2d 830, 843-50 (1980), and we deem the matter to be settled. Further, we stated, the statute complies with three general methods of guiding the discretion vested in the sentencing authority under Gregg, Proffitt [ v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976)], and Jurek.  Tichnell I, supra 287 Md. at 728-729, 415 A.2d at 848. We deem this matter, likewise, to be settled.