Opinion ID: 2345444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Death Sentence Proportionate

Text: The Court's final inquiry is whether the death sentence imposed in this case is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases under title 11, section 4209 of the Delaware Code. In the proportionality review mandated by Delaware law, this Court reviews the universe of Murder in the First Degree cases which have proceeded to a penalty hearing. [121] Though penalty decisions rendered before the 1991 amendment to section 4209 are pertinent, cases decided under the 1991 amendment are directly applicable and therefore most persuasive. [122] A definitive comparison of the cases is almost impossible. [123] Instead, the Court considers the factual background of the relevant cases to determine the proportionality of the particular sentence. [124] The record reflects that the sentence imposed on Johnson is not disproportionate to other sentences applied within the universe of applicable cases. Johnson's case is similar to other cases resulting in death sentences where the victim or victims have been current or former lovers or the new paramours of those lovers. [125] Following the killing, Johnson sought to prevent detection and possible prosecution by first shooting Truitt himself and then soliciting another inmate to attempt to do so once he was confined. [126] Johnson intentionally shot and killed Hamelin at close range while Hamelin was seated in a stopped car. Johnson's sentence of death is consistent with other cases involving a deliberate, cold-blooded, execution-style killing of a defenseless victim. [127] Accordingly, we conclude that Johnson's case fits within the pattern of cases where the imposition of the death penalty is appropriate, as reflected in the applicable universe of cases that is attached to this opinion.