Court Opinion

ID: 9669248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:46:04.857194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:54.480489
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Presiding Judge
(concurring in result).
I concur in the result reached in the principal opinion. However, I am doubtful about the stringency of the language in the principal opinion against the jury receiving any evidence that bears primarily on punishment. This is not the approach used when a judge assesses punishment, and I doubt if it sensible to use it with a jury. Our rules provide for a judge to receive information about defendant’s “ * * * characteristics, his financial condition, his social history and the circumstances affecting his behavior as may be helpful in imposing sentence * * * ”, Rule 27.07(b), V.A. M.R. A judge would have had before him all the information covered by questions 4 to 9 inclusive. If this is important to a judge in assessing punishment fairly, why is it not equally important and necessary that the jury have a basis for enlightened evaluation as to where punishment should be set — consistent with the public’s good and defendant’s own — particularly where the statutory allowable range is so vast as here — five years to life ?1 It is becoming increasingly evident that some guidance should be made available to a jury in its assessment of punishment, once guilt has been found. A determination with such lasting consequences should not be left to an uninformed decision or even whim.

. The state waived the death penalty.