Court Opinion

ID: 9704722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:44:11.746002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:04.702361
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Judge,
MANDERINO, J., files a concurring opinion.
concurring:
I concur with the result reached by the majority concerning the trial judge’s refusal to charge the jury concerning the relevancy of intoxication but note that appellant has not challenged the constitutionality of the applicable statute.
I also agree with the majority that the trial judge acted within the statutory guidelines for sentencing. Under the appropriate statute, however, the trial judge is not permitted to second-guess the jury concerning the crime of which the defendant is guilty. His personal opinion as to the proper verdict is an improper consideration to be used in sentencing. In this case, however, the judge’s expression of his opinion that the defendant could have been convicted of *92murder of the first degree and been given the death sentence, read in context, indicates that the trial judge was addressing himself to the gravity of the offense — a proper guideline — and was not justifying the sentencing because of disagreement with the jury’s verdict. I therefore agree that no reversible error occurred.