Court Opinion

ID: 9530113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:23.919727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:00.243185
License: Public Domain

*918Dore, C.J.
(concurring in the result of the dissent) — In previous review of capital punishment cases before this court, to wit:
State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d 1, 691 P.2d 929 (1984)
State v. Harris, 106 Wn.2d 784, 725 P.2d 975 (1986)
State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 717 P.2d 722 (1986)
State v. Mak, 105 Wn.2d 692, 718 P.2d 407 (1986)
State v. Rice, 110 Wn.2d 577, 757 P.2d 889 (1988)
State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 743 P.2d 210 (1987)
State v. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d 664, 683 P.2d 571 (1984)
I affirmed the jury verdicts of death. For the first time in the 10 years I have been on the Supreme Court I now dissent on a capital punishment case.
I dissent because I feel the defendant did not have a fair trial. I concur in Justice Utter's dissent based on the following particulars:
I agree with the dissent that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the summary chart to go into the jury room with the jury. I also agree that the court erred when, during the sentencing phase, it admitted information elicited from Lord's father concerning Lord's convictions for second degree murder and unlawful imprisonment and his probation violations and flight from police. The prejudicial effect of this evidence greatly outweighed its rebuttal value. State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wn.2d 631, 643, 683 P.2d 1079 (1984).
This case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.