Opinion ID: 1619317
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Beginning with Ramsey, this Court Strayed From a Proper Application of the Proportionality Review Required by Section 565.035

Text: Despite this long-settled interpretation of what constituted similar cases under section 565.035, in State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320 (Mo. banc 1993), this Court began undertaking a different  and much more limited  proportionality review. Ramsey correctly noted that the United States Supreme Court had held, Proportionality review is not constitutionally required. It is designed by the legislature as an additional safeguard against arbitrary and capricious sentencing and to promote the evenhanded, rational and consistent imposition of death sentences. Id. at 328, citing Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 47-48, 104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984). Pulley held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require that a court undertake a proportionality review. Pulley, 465 U.S. at 50-51, 104 S.Ct. 871. It did not address, however, the kind of analysis that is required under Missouri's proportionality review statute. Nonetheless, without distinguishing or overruling any of this Court's many cases (including those noted above) stating that proportionality review requires consideration of all prior capital cases, regardless of whether a death sentence was imposed, Ramsey rejected what it called the argument that it should be parsing through homicide cases by examining and weighing different facts. 864 S.W.2d at 327. Rather, it said, section 565.035 proportionality review merely provides a backstop against the freakish and wanton application of the death penalty.. . . If the case, taken as a whole, is plainly lacking circumstances consistent with those in similar cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, then a resentencing will be ordered. Id. at 328. Although Ramsey briefly mentioned that cases imposing a life sentence had been examined and found to differ in regard to the presence of aggravating circumstances and the lack of mitigating ones, id., it did not cite or discuss such cases. Thereafter, in reliance on Ramsey 's statement that the purpose of proportionality review is to provide a backstop against the freakish and wanton application of the death penalty, id. at 328, with rare exceptions [3] this Court's cases began to compare the facts of the defendant's case against only other cases in which imposition of the death penalty had been approved. See, e.g., State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908, 933-34 (Mo. banc 1994); State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 330 (Mo. banc 1996); Lyons v. State, 39 S.W.3d 32, 44 (Mo. banc 2001); State v. Johnson, 207 S.W.3d 24, 50-51 (Mo. banc 2006); State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693, 709-11 (Mo. banc 2008). Few of these cases actually analyze the language of section 565.035, however, or compare the analysis this Court undertakes to that required by the statute. Instead, they cite to the statement in Ramsey that the purpose of proportionality review is to protect against the freakish or wanton imposition of a death sentence and then note that prior cases have imposed death on similar facts so the death sentence is not disproportionate.