Court Opinion

ID: 9668553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:17:58.39876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:46.084075
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. I join Justice Hays’ dissent but would add that I disagree with this court’s decision in Andrews v. State, 251 Ark. 279, 472 S.W. 2d 86 (1971) and with the statement in the majority opinion that the jury should not be instructed regarding the alternatives the law provides for people who are found not guilty by reason of insanity. I have consistently opposed the idea that juries should set sentences. There are several reasons for my disagreement. First, a jury is in the least advantageous position to know what would be a fair sentence. A trial judge who hears cases day in and day out and is familiar with the entire criminal justice system is in a far better position to determine what a fair sentence is. Having the judge set the sentence would also lead to more uniformity. We are required in many cases to reverse a trial court’s judgment because an error has been made in the sentencing stage of a trial. This error can only be corrected if the case is remanded for a new trial or the sentence is reduced. Neither alternative is desirable. The accused has been found guilty by a jury and that finding has withstood appellate review. The only error involves the sentence. But the same jury cannot be brought back together again and, therefore, a new trial is required. On the other hand, a reduced sentence is not satisfactory to the State because it usually involves a repeat offender who should not receive lenient treatment. Even so, the law requires that the jury impose the sentence and we should not deny the jury the benefit of information that it should have in order to make a fair judgment regarding punishment. The jury should know about the parole system. A judge knows about it when he imposes the sentence. So what if the parole system is complicated? Trials are complicated and the law is complicated. We trust the jury to decide whether the people should live or die; surely we can trust them to use this needed information in an evenhanded way. Therefore, I would overrule Andrews and I would allow an instruction such as that proposed in this case.