Court Opinion

ID: 9676468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:25:04.87616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.755188
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring in result.
My preference would be to concur in Judge Welliver’s eloquent and well documented opinion. I cannot distinguish this case from State v. McIlvoy, 629 S.W.2d 333 (Mo. banc 1982). I do have reservations about the last paragraph, because I doubt that the record would support capital murder charges against Cutts or Wagner.
I am disturbed by Judge Billings’ statement that “it is questionable whether a present majority of this Court would follow State v. McIlvoy in a proportionality review *467situation; ...” The statute commands a review of proportionality. The Court is a continuing body and is something other than the sum of its membership. Mcllvoy is a part of the proportion.
In order that the Court may resolve the case, however, I concur in the result reached in the particular opinion. Although the record persuades me that the trial judge took great pains to advise the defendant that he could have a jury determination of punishment, I believe that it is better to remand with the directions of the principal opinion than to suffer a third submission of the case to this Court.