Opinion ID: 1907203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Proportionality Review

Text: To determine the validity of the Legislature's limitation on the proportionality review universe to death-sentenced defendants, we must examine whether the limitation prevents meaningful appellate review. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 186 n. 18, 524 A. 2d 188 (observing state death penalty statute's provision for appellate review recognizes Court's constitutional obligation to ensure meaningful review). The appropriate size of the universe is, however, but one of many questions that have been raised about the conduct of proportionality review and cannot be considered apart from those other questions. At the start, we characterized our effort to define the scope and conduct of proportionality review as an evolving process. Id. at 328, 524 A. 2d 188. We observed that proportionality issues are difficult and sensitive ... and hence review, reflection, and modification of the analysis... may be required as more information is gathered. Ibid. In the past six years, we have gained considerable experience in applying the methodologies developed by Professor Baldus and generally adopted by the Court in Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 131-66, 613 A. 2d 1059. See DiFrisco III, supra, 142 N.J. 148, 662 A. 2d 442; Martini II, supra, 139 N.J. 3, 651 A. 2d 949; Bey IV, supra, 137 N.J. 334, 645 A. 2d 685; Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. 109, 613 A. 2d 1059. Our experience teaches us that the proportionality review methodologies we use are not without substantial shortcomings and, accordingly, warrant careful reconsideration. Our goal is to retain those elements of the present system that provide useful information, to refine and improve that which we retain, if appropriate, and to reject methods that have proved unhelpful. We seek a practical approach that ensures every defendant before us a rigorous and complete review of his or her sentence of death. Our reconsideration extends to four discrete areas of concern: the size of the universe of comparison cases; particular issues in respect of individual proportionality review; questions relating to the statistical models used in both individual and systemic proportionality review; and the status of proportionality review as a separate proceeding in death penalty appeals. [7] Because these issues, with one exception, cannot be resolved on the record before us, we are appointing a Special Master to conduct additional fact-finding and make recommendations to the Court. On our receipt of his report, we will be in a position to determine whether the statutory limitation on the proportionality review universe prevents meaningful appellate review. Until that time, we will continue to use the full universe of death-eligible cases as described below. Today we decide, based on our experience and on the record before us, that the numerical-preponderance-of-aggravating-and-mitigating-factors test should be abandoned. We turn now to a discussion of each area of concern.
We have observed that [t]he first step in any proportionality undertaking is to establish the `universe' of cases that the Court will consider. Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 131, 613 A. 2d 1059. In Marshall II, we examined three possible statistical universes from which to draw comparison cases: a universe consisting of only those cases in which a death sentence was imposed, a universe consisting of all penalty-trial cases, and a universe consisting of all penalty-trial cases plus clearly death-eligible homicides in which the prosecutor elected not to seek the death penalty. Id. at 131-37, 613 A. 2d 1059. After careful evaluation, we selected the third option as best serving the purposes to be achieved by proportionality review. Id. at 137, 613 A. 2d 1059. We rejected a universe consisting of only death-sentenced cases as inadequate, id. at 133, 613 A. 2d 1059, and offered in support of our determination this simple example: On the assumption that 100 robbery-felony-murder cases are prosecuted as capital crimes, all defendants are convicted and one defendant is sentenced to death, a comparison of the death-sentenced defendant's punishment with a punishment imposed only on other death-sentenced defendants would exclude from the proportionality-review process the ninety-nine robbery-felony-murder defendants that juries did not sentence to death. Indisputably, the determination whether that single death sentence is disproportionate can be made only by comparing it with the life sentences imposed on the ninety-nine defendants convicted of the same crime.