Court Opinion

ID: 9572630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:43:21.538905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:42.218443
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent, concluding the majority erred in vacating -the death sentence imposed on Ronald R. Woomer.
I believe the solicitor’s closing argument in this case distinguishable from the ones in State v. Tyner, 273 S. C. 646, 258 S. E. (2d) 559 (1979); and State v. Gilbert, 273 S. C. 690, 258 S. E. (2d) 890 (1979). In Tyner and Gilbert the closing arguments attempted to lessen the jury’s burden of recommending/imposing the death sentence by -informing them of appellate review of all death sentences. Here, the solicitor told the jury he was not trying to lessen their burden, but, was merely emphasizing the importance of their task and that they are required to return a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented from the witness stand. He further emphasized the trial judge would review the evidence to *271ensure the verdict was proper. I believe the argument was a proper attempt to inform the jury of the importance of their role and not an attempt to lessen their responsibility.
The majority also held the trial judge failed to charge the jury that they could return a life sentence even if they found statutory aggravating circumstances. I disagree. Examining the jury charge in its entirety I find the trial judge properly instructed the jury as to possible sentences they could return. State v. Tucker, 273 S. C. 736, 259 S. E. (2d) 414 (1979).
I have carefully reviewed the entire record for prejudicial errors overlooked by counsel and find none. I would affirm the conviction and sentence of death of appellant, Ronald R. Woomer.
Affirmed.