Court Opinion

ID: 9562301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:26:00.803252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:17.380868
License: Public Domain

Finney, Justice:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, refusal of Young’s request for a jury charge on parole eligibility violated his Eighth Amendment rights. I would reverse.
The trial judge allowed the jurors to be voir dired on their understanding of the term “life imprisonment.” The responses indicated few potential jurors, if any, understood the legal meaning of this phrase. Once the judge allowed this *41issue to be raised in the minds of the jurors, it became a relevant circumstance in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Under these circumstances, the refusal to charge the jury the law on parole eligibility was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. —, —, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 2198, 129 L.Ed. (2d) 133, 147 (1994) (Souter, A.J., concurring). Further, I do not understand how the majority is able to conclude that the correct information would have had no impact on the jury’s sentencing decision. Simmons v. South Carolina, supra.