Opinion ID: 863607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: Facially Unconstitutional

Text: ś 96. Edwards also argues that Mississippi's statutory scheme for capital punishment is unconstitutional on its face. Specifically, he argues Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101, Mississippi's capital murder statute, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The ground assigned in this challenge is that the statute permits the death penalty for certain felony murders without a finding of intent to kill, but does not include premeditated murder. ś 97. This error has been asserted before this Court in Gray v. State, 351 So.2d 1342, 1344 (Miss.1977), and Bell v. Watkins, 381 So.2d 118, 124 (Miss.1980), but was denied without analysis. However, this Court recently addressed this issue in Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307 (Miss.1997) in which the Court concluded: The constitutional challenge asserted here does not offend the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and this conclusion has been long ago held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Gray v. Lucas, 677 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir.1982), reh'g denied, 685 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 910, 103 S.Ct. 1886, 76 L.Ed.2d 815, reh'g denied, 462 U.S. 1124, 103 S.Ct. 3099, 77 L.Ed.2d 1357 (1983). Holland v. State, 705 So.2d at 320. ś 98. Edwards also argues that the statute offends due process and equal protection rights of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court quoted Gray when addressing this issue: The basis of Gray's claim under both equal protection and due process is that there is no rational basis for imposing the death penalty on people who commit murder during the course of a felony but not imposing it on people who commit especially atrocious simple murder. However, Mississippi could have rationally decided that felony murders pose a problem different from atrocious simple murders and could have sought to cure the felony murder problem first. Alternatively, the legislature could have decided that the death penalty would be more effective in deterring felony murders since an experienced felon is more likely to assess the consequences of his acts. Conversely, it could have rationally determined that the death penalty might not effectively deter atrocious simple murders since such people are likely as a group to act on passion or impulse and thus be unmindful of the consequences of their crime. In short, the legislature could have rationally decided that the one class of murders either presented a different problem from the other or that the death penalty would be more effective deterrent [sic] to felony murders than atrocious simple murders. Gray, 677 F.2d at 1104. Holland, 705 So.2d at 320. Considering all these factors, we agree with the previous holding in Holland that the constitutional challenge to Mississippi's capital murder statutory scheme is without merit.