Court Opinion

ID: 9852979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:40:33.444558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:38.939894
License: Public Domain

Goolsby, Judge
(concurring):
*209I concur in Judge Cureton’s opinion but feel some additional explanation is needed.
The forewoman testified that the jury “wanted to know the difference in the length in the sentence, with mercy or without mercy” and, after some discussion, “decided that the length of the sentence shouldn’t have any bearing on how we decided.”
The length of sentence, however, had everything to do with the case. Two of the three possible verdicts directly involved the jury in sentencing. One verdict required the imposition of a life sentence and another authorized the judge to use his discretion in passing sentence. The jury was not simply to decide the question of guilt without reference to punishment.
Therein lies the problem with what the bailiff said. I think the jury could reasonably have concluded from what the bailiff told the forewoman that the judge, being a fair man, had discretion with regard to the length of sentence, even if it returned a sentence not recommending Cameron to the mercy of the court. Clearly, the jury, judging from what both the bailiff and the forewoman testified to, had forgotten or, at the very least, were confused about the trial judge’s instructions regarding the effect of each of the two verdicts of guilty.