Opinion ID: 1330998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: disproportionate and excessive sentence

Text: Wilson next argues that his sentence must be overturned pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-25(C)(3) (1989 Cum. Supp.), which obligates this Court to determine, prior to affirming any sentence of death, whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. Wilson stresses the and the defendant. language in the statute, and asserts that since he was acting under an irresistible impulse, he has less personal culpability and therefore fails to measure up to other defendants who have had their death sentences affirmed. We disagree. As mentioned above, South Carolina has declined to recognize the irresistible impulse test as a defense or as a factor dramatically reducing culpability. Of course, insofar as Wilson's mental incapacity is embodied in mitigating factors, his culpability is potentially reduced. By statute, mental capacity, mental disturbance, and the capacity to control one's conduct are considered as mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence for a given defendant in a capital murder case. [11] All of these mitigating factors were considered by the trial judge in this case. ( See Tr. 1195-96). In this particular case, this mitigating evidence did not dissuade the lower court from sentencing Wilson to death. Similarly, Wilson has failed to dissuade us from affirming his sentence. We have previously affirmed sentences of death for defendants when the identical three mitigating factors existed in the defendant's favor. See, e.g., State v. Middleton , 295 S.C. 318, 368 S.E. (2d) 457 (1988), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 872, 109 S. Ct. 189, 102 L.Ed. (2d) 158 (1988); State v. Bell , 302 S.C. 18, 393 S.E. (2d) 364 (1990), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 227, 112 L.Ed. (2d) 182 (1990) ( See Tr. 2147 in that case). Wilson's argument that his death sentence is disproportionate because of his alleged diminished personal culpability is therefore rejected. He concedes that the heinous nature of his crime easily compares with other cases in which the death sentence has been found warranted.