Opinion ID: 2149729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Supreme Court Review of Sentencing

Text: Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution provides that [t]he Supreme Court shall have, in all appeals of criminal cases, the power to review and revise the sentence imposed. Although our rules for appellate review of sentences require that great deference be given the judgment of the trial court, Ind.Appellate Rule 17, where the sentence is death, those rules stand more as guideposts for our appellate review than as immovable pillars supporting a sentence decision. Spranger v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 931, 947 n. 2, reh'g denied (1986), 500 N.E.2d 1170, cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1033, 107 S.Ct. 1965, 95 L.Ed.2d 536 (1987). In fact, we have made clear that this Court's review of capital cases under Article 7 is part and parcel of the sentencing process. Cooper v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1216, 1218. During appellate review of a death sentence where the jury has recommended against death, two separate and distinct issues are always presented for our consideration: (i) whether the trial court sentencing statement demonstrates due consideration of a jury recommendation; and (ii) whether this Court, upon independent reconsideration of a jury recommendation against death, nevertheless concludes that the death penalty is appropriate. In making the second of these inquires, this Court will apply the Martinez Chavez test as our standard of appellate review. Before we affirm a sentence of death, it must appear to us that all the facts available in the record point so clearly to the imposition of the death penalty that the jury's recommendation is unreasonable. Martinez Chavez, 539 N.E.2d at 5 (on rehearing).