Court Opinion

ID: 9683200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:24:25.027981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:46.211804
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, concurring. “If the testimony supports the conviction for the offense in question and if the sentence is within the limits set by the legislature, we are not at liberty to reduce it even though we may think it to be unduly harsh.” Osborne v. State, 237 Ark. 5, 371 S.W.2d 518 (1963). See also, Miller v. State, 230 Ark. 352, 322 S.W.2d 685 (1959) and Hall v. State, 113 Ark. 454, 168 S.W. 1122 (1914). Although this is not an inexorable rule, it is the accepted rule of law in this state. Roberts v. State, 281 Ark. 218, 663 S.W.2d 178 (1984). Anticipating that the United States Supreme Court would require comparison of sentences in death cases pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, this Court agreed to compare sentences in such cases. Collins v. State, 261 Ark. 195, 548 S.W.2d 106 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 878 (1977). However, the United States Supreme Court held otherwise in Pulley, Warden v. Harris, No. 82-1095 (Jan. 23, 1984), stating that the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not require an appellate court to compare death sentences with penalties imposed in similar cases. Therefore, this Court should now revert to its long established position as reflected in Osborne and refuse to compare or reduce sentences absent some constitutional infraction.