Opinion ID: 2161601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: The Request for Data Relevant for Proportionality Review

Text: In May of 1984, Grandison's standby counsel filed on his behalf a motion to compel the State to provide Grandison with certain information concerning homicide statistics. The specific information was as follows: (1) The names of all defendants indicted for murder after July 1, 1978, in which aggravating circumstances, as defined in Article 27, Section 413 existed. (2) As to each defendant so listed, indicate those cases in which the State elected to seek the death penalty. (3) The disposition of each defendant's case, indicating if dispositions were the result of plea or trial. (4) The full plea negotiations in those cases in which the State accepted a plea. As the motion indicates, this information was being sought to support Grandison's motion to dismiss the State's election to seek the death penalty on the basis that such election was unconstitutionally random, arbitrary, and capricious. The trial judge denied the motion believing that the matter was to be dealt with by this Court under its statutorily mandated review of all death penalty cases. While the motion to dismiss appears to be based on allegations of an arbitrary election to seek the death penalty by the State, and there was some argument made to that effect when this present motion was heard, Grandison argues to us that he needed the information in order to prepare an argument on proportionality review. In our view he has abandoned the arbitrary election argument, and we need not address it. As a practical matter, at the time of the request (after he had been found guilty but prior to his sentencing proceeding) the information sought for proportionality review purposes was not needed by Grandison. Indeed, that information would never be needed until the sentencing proceeding resulted in the imposition of a death sentence. See Tichnell v. State, 297 Md. 432, 468 A.2d 1 (1983) for a thorough discussion of the statutory proportionality review procedure required of this Court.