Court Opinion

ID: 9711265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:27:42.650989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.256293
License: Public Domain

DEBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
In a death sentence situation it is a mitigating circumstance that the defendant “has no significant history of prior criminal conduct.” I.C. 35-50-2-9(c)(1). At the sentencing hearing before the judge, over a lengthy hearsay objection, the prosecution was permitted to present the testimony of a Chicago policewoman. She stated that she had arrested appellant Rondon and his codefendant on an allegation of rape, that the victim told her over the phone that she would not proceed with charges because she was afraid, and that ultimately appellant and his codefendant were released because the charge was determined by a court to be unsupported by probable cause. The purpose of introducing this testimony was to rebut an inference of “no significant history of prior criminal conduct” which defendant had attempted to raise by showing no record of prior criminal convictions in the United States.
In the sentencing order the court states: “The following mitigating factors have been considered: 1. Standard: The defendant has no significant history of pri- or criminal conduct. Defendant is one of the jailed Cubans Castro released to emigrate to the United States. Through his signed immigration papers, we know Rondon was serving seven (7) years in a Cuban prison for stealing a Cuban Government vehicle. He was also charged with rape in Cook County, Illinois in 1981, but dismissed for lack of probable cause.”
* * * * * *>>
The sentencing order continues at a later point in the following words:
“The Court now finds the following aggravating factor has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the State of Indiana:
******
In mitigation, the Court further finds the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal conduct according to our laws.
The Court further finds the mitigating circumstance is outweighed by the aggravating circumstance.
***** *>>
In the approach of the trial court, appellant’s conviction in Cuba and his arrest in Chicago, while not indicative of a “significant history of criminal conduct” were nevertheless indicative of a “history of criminal conduct”. It is express in the Court’s finding that it did consider the Chicago arrest and the hearsay statements of the officer describing the complaints of the prosecutrix in deciding whether appellant’s history of criminal conduct was significant or not. Having done so, the next step in the sentencing process was to assign weight to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. I am unable to conclude, as does the majority of the court, that the trial court did not consider that same Chicago arrest and those hearsay statements reporting what the alleged victim had said in deciding what weight to give to the mitigating circumstance. Reason dictates that some history of criminal conduct, unlike no history of criminal conduct at all, should diminish the weight of the mitigator no significant history of prior criminal conduct. I would hold that any improper diminution in weight of a mitigator, in a death case, warrants setting aside that sentence.
I do however find integrity in the conviction.
DICKSON, J., concurs.