Opinion ID: 2150043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Trial Court Sentencing Determination.

Text: Once the jury has made its recommendation, the jury is dismissed, and the trial court has the duty of making the final sentencing determination. First, the trial court must find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the aggravating circumstances listed in the death penalty statute exists. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(e)(1) (1988) (currently Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(i)(1) (1993)). Second, the trial court must find that any mitigating circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance or circumstances. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(e)(2) (1988) (currently Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(i)(2) (1993)). Third, before making the final determination of the sentence, the trial court must consider the jury's recommendation. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(e) (1988). However, the court is not bound by the jury's recommendation. Id. The trial court must make a record of its reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 (1988). These statutory provisions make clear that the sentencing court has a separate and independent role in assessing and weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and in making the final determination whether to impose the death penalty. Benirschke v. State (1991), Ind., 577 N.E.2d 576, 579, reh'g denied (1991), Ind., 582 N.E.2d 355, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3042, 120 L.Ed.2d 910 (1992). In arriving at its own separate determination as to whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment, the sentencing court is to point out its employment of this process in specific and clear findings. Id. The requirement for sentencing findings are more stringent in capital cases than in non-capital sentencing situations. Evans v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 1251, 1254, reh'g granted on other grounds (1992), Ind., 598 N.E.2d 516, reh'g denied. The trial court's statement of reasons (i) must identify each mitigating and aggravating circumstance found, (ii) must include the specific facts and reasons which lead the court to find the existence of each such circumstance, (iii) must articulate that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances have been evaluated and balanced in determination of the sentence, Benirschke, 577 N.E.2d at 579, Evans, 563 N.E.2d at 1254, and (iv) must set forth the trial court's personal conclusion that the sentence is appropriate punishment for this offender and this crime. Benirschke, 577 N.E.2d at 579; Woods, 547 N.E.2d at 793. We require such specificity in a sentencing order or statement of reasons for imposing a sentence to insure the trial court considered only proper matters when imposing sentence, thus safeguarding against the imposition of sentences which are arbitrary or capricious, and to enable the appellate court to determine the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Daniels v. State (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 487, 491. The trial court's sentencing order reads as follows: SENTENCING ORDER (December 14, 1991) The State of Indiana appears by Prosecuting Attorney Kimberly Kelley Mohr and Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney W. Trent VanHaaften, and the Defendant appears in person, in custody of the Posey County Sheriff's Department, and by counsel, Ronald Warrum and Thomas M. Swain. The Defendant having been convicted on November 14, 1991 of Count I, Arson, a Class A Felony, Count III, Murder, and Count IV, Murder, and for being a Habitual Offender, the Cause proceeds to sentencing hearing. After considering the testimony presented in open Court this date, the arguments of counsel, the pre-sentence report and the psychological evaluation submitted by Dr. Thomas Liffick, the Court FINDS: I. FINDINGS As to Count I, Arson, a Class A Felony, the aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances do not outweigh one another as to require a sentence greater or less than the presumptive sentence; The sentence imposed on Count I should be enhanced by an additional thirty years for being a Habitual Offender. The State of Indiana having sought the death penalty in this cause as to Counts III and IV, and the Jury having recommended the death penalty, the Court has considered the following aggravating factors as to Counts III and IV: James P. Harrison committed the murder by intentionally killing the victim, Jordan Hanmore, while committing or attempting to commit Arson; James P. Harrison has been convicted of another murder, to-wit: Murder of Denise T. Wilberger on June 22, 1973, Cause No. A63256, Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia; and The victims of the murders, Tia Forsee and Jordan Hanmore, were both under twelve years of age, to-wit: Tia Forsee was 3 and 1/2 years old, and Jordan Hanmore was 21 months old. The only factors the Court determines are mitigating are the fact that the Defendant served in the military in Vietnam and was wounded while in service to his country, and that Mr. Harrison suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse as a child; and The aggravating circumstances as to Counts III and IV far outweigh any mitigating circumstances requiring the Court to impose a sentence greater than the presumptive sentence, and allowing the Court to impose the death penalty.