Opinion ID: 1718692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Unconstitutionality of Death Penalty ( Ring v. Arizona )

Text: In this assignment of error, defendant asserts that the Louisiana death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it fails to require the jury to determine that death is the appropriate punishment beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), defendant complains that Louisiana's capital sentencing scheme is based on standardless jury discretion which violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, Ring requires that jurors find beyond a reasonable doubt all of the predicate facts which render a defendant eligible for the death sentence, after consideration of the mitigating evidence. Id., 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443. While defendant now argues that Ring should extend such a requirement to the ultimate sentence as well as the predicate facts, neither Ring, nor Louisiana jurisprudence for that matter, requires the jurors to reach their ultimate sentencing determination beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Koon, 96-1208, p. 27 (La.5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756, 772-73 (Louisiana is not a weighing state. It does not require capital juries to weigh or balance mitigating against aggravating circumstances, one against the other, according to any particular standard.) (citation omitted). This argument lacks merit.