Court Opinion

ID: 9753981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:37:07.449416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:46.062305
License: Public Domain

RAKER, J., dissenting, joined by BELL, C.J., and GREENE, J.
I would grant appellant’s Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345 and grant appel*608lant a new sentencing proceeding. I would hold that the portion of § 2—303(i) that appellant now challenges, and that provides that the punishment shall be death if the sentencing authority finds that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, violates the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. I would sever the unconstitutional portion of the statute, require the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to be applied as a matter of law, vacate appellant’s sentence of death imposed pursuant to § 2—303(i), and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
Under the circumstances, I rely upon the reasons stated in my previous dissents in the cases of Oken v. State, 378 Md. 179, 835 A.2d 1105 (2003), and Borchardt v. State, 367 Md. 91, 786 A.2d 631 (2001), and Judge McAuliffe’s dissenting and concurring opinion in Evans v. State, 304 Md. 487, 539, 499 A.2d 1261, 1288 (1985). I rely also upon the United States Supreme Court cases of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and the state Court cases of People v. Montour, 157 P.3d 489, 496 (Colo. 2007), State v. Rizzo, 266 Conn. 171, 833 A.2d 363, 393 (2003), Johnson v. State, 118 Nev. 787, 59 P.3d 450, 460 (2002), State v. Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 565, 751 A.2d 40, 75-76 (2000), State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 473 N.E.2d 264, 304 (1984), State v. Odom, 336 S.W.3d 541, 571 (Tenn.2011), State v. Lafferty, 20 P.3d 342, 376 (Utah 2001), and Olsen v. State, 67 P.3d 536, 574-75 (Wyo.2003).
I cannot fathom authorizing the imposition of the death penalty based on a determination that death is “more likely than not ” the appropriate sentence. That is exactly what the plain language of the Maryland Death Penalty statute permits and what the majority of this Court endorses. To me, such a *609standard violates the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge BELL and Judge GREENE join in the views expressed in this dissenting opinion.