Court Opinion

ID: 9509833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:49:59.447642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:53.758597
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRIEWEILER
specially concurring.
I agree that the District Court’s findings are supported by the evidence and that it did not deviate from the statutory process for arriving at its sentence. I also agree that the death penalty is not disproportionate to the penalty that has been imposed in similar cases in this State, and that there is no persuasive evidence that the sentencing judge was influenced by passion or prejudice. Therefore, while I do not agree with all that is said in this Court’s opinion, I concur that there has been no issue raised which would warrant reversal of the District Court.
I also concur, however, with that part of Justice Leaphart’s concurring opinion in which he concludes that our obligation to review a defendant’s death sentence for proportionality cannot be limited to *186those cases in which the death penalty was proposed by the prosecution and which were appealed to this Court. Such an arbitrary definition of the class of cases to be reviewed dilutes the primary purpose for review.
JUSTICE HUNT joins in the foregoing specially concurring opinion.