Opinion ID: 1763781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: kentucky's method of proportionality review is constitutional.

Text: Hunt contends that this Court's proportionality review process, as prescribed by KRS 532.075(1) is unconstitutional. He states that The problem with Kentucky's review process is this Court does not compare cases in which the death penalty was imposed to the `penalty imposed in similar cases.' He alleges that this Court's universe of cases has been limited solely to those cases in which the death penalty was imposed and not to other similar cases in which death was not imposed; and, further, has been limited to only those cases which have been affirmed on appeal. He also contends that he is entitled to access this Court's KRS 532.075(6) data. Kentucky's proportionality review is constitutional and comports with statutory requirements and the federal Constitution. Fields v. Commonwealth, 274 S.W.3d 375, 419 (Ky.2008). We discern no reason to reevaluate this settled issue. Moreover, [t]here is no right to access this Court's KRS 532.075 review data. Id. (citing Ex parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617, 624 (Ky.1978)). See also e.g., Epperson v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 46, 63 (Ky.2006) (The concerns expressed by Epperson about his inability to access the data are without merit. This Court does not use any secret data but simply compares one death penalty case with all the other cases in which the death sentence was imposed after January 1, 1970.); Harper v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 665, 670-71 (Ky.1985) (For some reason, obscure to us, the Public Advocate keeps insisting on access to the data collected by this court under the provisions of KRS 532.075(6). We had thought that [ Ex Parte Farley ] settled this question. There is no articulated reason why the Public Advocate cannot assemble this data for use in capital cases. We state in our opinions all matters considered by us, and in no way are mysterious and secret records or data taken into account in our deliberations. The time and effort expended in arguing this point would suffice to compile all the data we consider.); Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787, 807 (Ky.2001) (Failure to provide access to data collected by this Court pursuant to KRS 532.075(6) did not deny Appellant due process of law.).