Court Opinion

ID: 9521457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:05:28.393068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:46.853581
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Operations required to be performed by the jury and judge after the conclusion of a death sentencing hearing are set forth in Ind.Code § 85-50-2-9(e) which provides:
"(e) If the hearing is by jury, the jury shall recommend to the court whether the death penalty should be imposed. The jury may recommend the death penalty only if it finds:
(1) That the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the aggravating circumstances exists; and
(2) That any mitigating circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance or circumstances. The court shall make the final determination of the sentence, after considering the jury's recommendation, and the sentence shall be based on the same standards that the jury was required to consider. The court is not bound by the jury's recommendation."
According to this statute the "final determination of the sentence" is to be made by the judge by applying the same standards used by the jury in reaching its recommendation. The first standard to be applied by the judge is the trier-of-fact standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the major goals of this sentencing process is to prevent the discriminatory and arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. Brewer v. State, (1982) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 889. This goal, under this statute, is in major part to be assured through the requirement that the judge, as trier of fact, be persuaded to a moral certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance has been proven. In order to accomplish this essential operation, the judge must be in a trier of-fact mindset and not a review or appellate mindset. Schiro v. State, (1983) Ind., 451 N.E.2d 1047, separate concurring and dissenting opinions of DeBruler, J., and Prentice, J. Without appellate enforce*855ment of this requirement, the death judgment will be based upon an advisory jury verdict which is reviewed for sufficiency of the evidence by the sentencing judge. That is no judgment at all. That would be totally at odds with the purpose of the layered statutory scheme to prevent the arbitrary and discriminatory imposition of the death penalty.
The finding and judgment of the sentencing court below is as follows:
"The Court now enters finding and reasons for the imposition of the death penalty as recommended by the jury in this case as follows:
The defendant, Richard Dillon, was found guilty of the killings of William Hilborn and Mary Hilborn during the commission of a burglary in the guilt determination stage of the trial.
At the sentencing hearing, the burden was upon the State of Indiana to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murders were intentional and committed during the perpetration of a burglary as set forth in Counts VII and VIII of the charging information. The State moved to incorporate by reference the testimony presented in the first stage of the trial, which motion was granted. The testimony showed that the defendant and another broke and entered the Hilborn residence with the intent to commit the felony of theft. While the defendant and his cohort were inside the residence in the process of committing the burglary, William and Mary Hilborn returned to their home. The defendant and his accomplice, while in hiding inside the house, determined that it would be necessary to kill both William and Mary Hilborn in order to escape criminal prosecution and then carried out that plan. Accordingly, the jury was justified in finding beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the aggravating cireumstances of an intentional killing of the victims while committing a burglary and that the defendant committed another murder.
In reviewing the seven possible mitigating cireumstances considered by the jury, the Court finds:
1. The defendant had no significant history of prior criminal conduct. This is a mitigating circumstance which must be weighed against the aggravating circumstances.
2. There was no evidence that the defendant was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murders. The defendant's confession revealed that he was somewhat fearful of being apprehended for the burglary, however, that same confession also revealed that the defendant and his accomplice had nearly left the residence by way of the kitchen and then returned to the living room and bedroom where the killings took place.
3. The evidence shows that the victims were completely unaware that the defendant and his accomplice were inside the residence when they arrived at their home. Thus, the victims were not participants in nor did they consent to the defendant's conduct.
4. Juvenile proceedings have been instituted against the defendant's accomplice for his participation in these crimes. In his confession the defendant stated that he, the defendant, stabbed both of the victims, Thus, the defendant's participation in the murders was not minor.
5. There was no evidence that the defendant was under substantial domina tion of another person.
6. The defendant did not file a plea of insanity nor did he file a plea alleging lack of comprehension. In his confession the defendant stated that he had consumed a small quantity of controlled substances on the day of the murders and that he was high. The testimony of witnesses detailing the defendant's actions shortly after the killings show that his thinking was clear and was well aware of what had occurred. The evidence fails to substantiate that the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or of intoxication.
*8567. As to any other circumstances appropriate for consideration the only other circumstance which might be considered is the defendant's age of 18 years. This is not necessarily to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, particularly in view of the obvious torture inflicted upon at least one of the victims prior to the final fatal blow. The capability of such cruelty in the mind of one that age cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance.
In conclusion the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances of the intentional killing of the victims while committing a burglary and the defendant having committed two murders outweigh the mitigating cireum-stances of no significant history of prior criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court finds the jury recommendation to be proper and lawful and that the Court has a duty to follow such recommendation.
DATED: August 21, 1981.
Edward C. Theobald, Judge Superior Court of Knox County"
There is no direct statement here that the sentencing judge was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of felony murder and at the time of such offense intentionally killed one of the victims, the elements of the aggravating circumstance relied upon by the State. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(b)(1). Instead, this ree-ord shows a review of the evidence supporting the existence of the aggravating circumstance. There is no dealing with that evidence as a trier of fact. It may be that this has occurred again because of the lack of precision in the language of the statute. Cf. Schiro v. State, supra. It may be because the trial and sentencing process in a capital case has become too complicated and demanding. Whatever the difficulty, this Court should stand firm and require a clear demonstration that the essential operations of the death sentencing process have taken place. I find no such demonstration here, and therefore must vote to set aside the penalty of death. I do not, however, find legal or constitutional grounds for reversal and therefore vote to affirm the conviction.
PRENTICE, J., concurs.