Court Opinion

ID: 9864970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:18:41.748869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:29.408170
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Otto Bock
dissenting.
I regret my inability to concur. Relative to the first point decided, I assume that the opinion of the court does not hold that the failure to furnish the jury list, under the circumstances, was prejudicial error. As to that question, therefore, I make no further comment.
On the second point decided, I am persuaded that the answer by the trial court to the question of the jury as to whether defendant would be eligible for parole in case of a life sentence was not error. It was a matter within the sound discretion of the court, and that discretion was reasonably exercised. Unlike felonies generally, the jury in homicide cases has the sole responsibility of deciding, in first degree murder, the punishment — life imprisonment or death. This perhaps is the gravest responsibility cast upon a jury. When in the deliberation of such a serious problem it is desirous of receiving advice concerning the legal effect of its verdicts, it'is entitled to all proper and reasonable assistance from the trial court, which in the present instance was supplied. There is no contention here that under the evidence the jury could not properly and legally impose the death penalty. Its action in arriving at the punishment was of course affected by the same human fallibility which is present in all such determinations, whether by court or jury, which cannot, in the very nature of events, be considered as prejudicial error, and we, as an appellate tribunal, should not intrude under those circumstances. In the absence of any prejudicial error, it would seem to me to be a usurpation of the sole responsibility of the jury, for us to refuse to affirm the judgment based upon its verdict.
*275In a recent well-reasoned opinion, State v. Carroll, 52 Wyo. 29, 69 P. (2d) 542, 557, a case in which the facts are very similar to those in the case at bar, although the circumstances were somewhat more favorable to defendant than in the instant case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the death sentence. See, also, 23 C.J.S., p. 1053, §1379; State v. Barth, 114 N.J.L. 112, 116, 176 Atl. 183, 185.
In my opinion, the judgment should be affirmed.