Court Opinion

ID: 9521320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:02:34.93477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:39.861939
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
concurring.
For the reasons stated in my dissent in Lambert v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind.1996), I believe that a procedurally defective sentencing order in a death penalty case should require remand for resentencing. Based on this record I cannot conclude that the sentencing decisions of the court were unaffected by the questionnaire described in the court’s majority opinion. It appears more probable than not that the questionnaire was never communicated to the parties. In a matter as sensitive as a death penalty proceeding, the greatest care must be taken to afford all parties the opportunity to present their issues in a full and fair proceeding. The slightest ex parte communication runs the risk of tainting the proceeding. Howev*911er, I do not believe I should refrain from participation in the • reweighing exercise directed by the majority on the ground that I would not have designed the process to include it. For that reason I concur in all portions of the opinion, except as to part III, and concur in result as to part III.
Having explained this position, I do not expect to find it necessary to reiterate it in future cases in the unhappy but foreseeable circumstance that the same issue presents itself again.