Court Opinion

ID: 9753072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:56:09.233802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:29.222666
License: Public Domain

ELDRIDGE, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the judgment and with all portions of the Court’s opinion except the section dealing with victim impact evidence. The views expressed in that section are dicta. Furthermore, the matter may not arise again in this case after our reversal and remand. As both the majority opinion and Judge Cole’s concurring opinion illustrate, the admissibility of the victim impact evidence in a case of this type presents constitutional issues. I would adhere to our normal policy of not ruling upon constitutional questions unnecessarily. See, e.g., Rutherford v. Rutherford, 296 Md. 347, 364 n. 6 (majority opinion), 366-367 (concurring opinion) 464 A.2d 228 (1983), and cases there cited. Conse*753quently, I would refrain from expressing any opinion concerning the admissibility of the victim impact evidence at the prior sentencing proceeding.