Court Opinion

ID: 9683201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:24:25.031744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:46.212282
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. This concurrence is addressed to the suggestion that we abandon comparative review in death cases. In Collins v. State, 261 Ark. 195, 548 S.W.2d 106 (1972), cert. denied 434 U.S. 878 (1978), we took upon ourselves the obligation to review death sentences comparatively. Comparative review was not required by Arkansas law but was done to insure that the death sentence in Arkansas would not be freakishly imposed. That procedure has been used to reduce several sentences of death to life without parole. Henry v. State, 278 Ark. 478, 647 S.W.2d 419 (1983); Neal v. State, 274 Ark. 217, 623 S.W.2d 191 (1981); Sumlin v. State, 273 Ark. 185, 617 S.W.2d 372 (1981). It is suggested that because the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution does not require a comparative review, we should abandon the practice. Such a break would be a breach of faith by this court and would remove a check against the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty. In my judgment, the laborious and serious effort this court has made in reviewing death sentences to insure that decisions of the United States Supreme Court are followed will eventually work to the good of Arkansas and its legal system. When we approve a death sentence, it receives every consideration, not just a rubber stamp approval, and by all rights a great majority of our decisions should withstand scrutiny by other courts that use any reasonable standard of review. If we abandon our standards in the least, we stand to lose some credibility. In any event, we have our duty and responsibility regardless of what other courts may do. Some thirty states use some form of comparative review. Pulley v. Harris, _U.S. _(Jan. 23, 1984) (Brennan, concurring). A study of all the opinions in Pulley indicates it is a desirable practice. We should not consider reneging on our obligation. Dudley, J., joins in this concurrence.