|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3789
|
|
|
|
|
MARVIN MANDEL, Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this more severe standard applicable in a situation where
the judge imposes the death penalty notwithstanding a
contrary recommendation of the jury is indeed a
limitation on the general proposition that the jury's
recommendation is advisory only and that the actual
sentence is to be determined by the trial judge.
Accordingly, we believe that a Maryland trial judge
should follow the standards articulated in Tedder v.
State, in imposing the death sentence in the face of a
jury recommendation for life imprisonment. Unlike the
standards which should be followed by juries and judges
under other circumstances, this would require him, we
believe, to adhere to a "beyond a reasonable doubt"
standard not only in determining the presence of
aggravating circumstances but also in determining the
absence of mitigating circumstances and ultimately
weighing the two against each other.
6. You next ask how specific and detailed the
jury's conclusions must be with respect to its findings
of aggravating or mitigating circumstances if it
recommends the death penalty. In particular, you inquire
as to whether it must make specific findings as to each
of the enumerated circumstances.
Section 413(e) explicitly requires any trial judge
who imposes the death sentence to support his
determination "by specific written findings of fact based
upon the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
upon the records of the trial and the sentencing
proceedings." No such requirement is placed upon a trial
judge imposing a sentence of life imprisonment. In
contrast to the specific requirement of written findings
when the court imposes the death sentence. Section 413(c)
simply requires the jury to "render an advisory sentence
to the court, based upon" whether sufficient aggravating
circumstances exist, whether sufficient mitigating
circumstances exist to outweigh the aggravating
circumstances and whether, based on these considerations,
the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or
death. While it is obviously implicit in any
recommendation of the death penalty which accords with
the statute and proper instructions from the judge that
the jury has found one or more aggravating circumstances
and has found that they outweigh any mitigating
circumstances, the statute simply does not contain a
requirement that the jury express its conclusions in
specific or detailed form, and in particular it does not
require that the jury make specific findings as to each
of the enumerated circumstances.
It is possible to argue that Section 413(c) at least
requires the jury to make three general findings along
the lines set forth in paragraph (1), (2) and (3) of
subsection (c). While we do not believe the statute
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
