Court Opinion

ID: 9688816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:07:17.528203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.440038
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
Under Issue 7, in upholding Burtzlaff’s twenty-year sentence, the majority holds:
This (the 20-year sentence) does not shock the conscience of men of reason generally and is not disproportionate so as to activate the proportionality tests of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983); State v. Bad Heart Bull, 257 N.W.2d 715, 720 (S.D.1977).
I feel compelled to observe that, at least within binding federal decisional authority, no Eighth Amendment proportionality guarantee continues to exist outside of death penalty jurisprudence unless the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate to the crime. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).
Additionally, although I do not join his dissent, I agree with Justice Wuest that the time has now come for us to consider adoption of Federal Rule 704. Despite much reading on the topic, I have seen no persuasive, logical argument for retaining our current ultimate issue rule.