Court Opinion

ID: 9589641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:47:03.154804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:38.204400
License: Public Domain

Finney, Chief Justice,
concurring:
I reluctantly concur as I am bound by stare decisis. Four years ago this Court, over my objection, abandoned our longstanding policy of reviewing death cases in favorem vitae. State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E. (2d) 315 (1991). The majority in Torrence advanced two reasons for their ruling: (1) the availability of postconviction relief and habeas corpus and (2) deliberate abuse of the in favorem vitae doctrine by “sandbagging” defense counsel. Any claim of deliberate sandbagging in the past is amply refuted by a reading of the majority *240opinion in the present case, which reflects a trial record replete with examples of unpreserved prejudicial error. In order to affirm here, the majority is forced to point to the inadequate, incomplete, and untimely remedy of posteonviction relief. I strongly question whether the justice system, the public, the victim’s family or the defendant is served by delaying final resolution of this case for several more years.
Nonetheless, lacking a majority willing to overrule State v. Torrence and reinstate infavorem vitae, I reluctantly concur.