|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3796
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the character and record of the defendant,
particularly with reference to mitigating circumstances;
and
3. meaningful appellate review.
However, in so important a matter as the statutory
procedure for imposition of the death penalty, we believe
that it is appropriate for all concerned, including this
office in performing its bill review function, to impose
a somewhat higher standard than mere facial
constitutionality. It is unfortunate, to say the least,
that a bill of this importance leaves so many loose ends
and possesses so many interpretive problems, thus
subjecting the administration of the capital punishment
scheme to a trial and error period prior to the
resolution of these questions by the appellate courts.
The Florida statute, upon which the sentencing proceeding
features of Senate Bill 106 so strongly rely, had a
fairly lengthy period of judicial interpretation by the
appellate courts of Florida before being presented to the
Supreme Court in Proffitt v. Florida, supra. Indeed, it
can fairly be said that the existence of these prior
constructions of the statute by the Florida courts
enhanced its constitutionality and facilitated the
favorable decision by the Supreme Court. While it is
possible, and indeed likely, that the Court of Appeals of
Maryland will apply and follow the Florida decisions in
construing Senate Bill 106, particularly if it believes
that doing so will enhance the constitutionality of
Maryland's law, that is not certain to occur. In the
meantime, we, the State's Attorneys and the trial courts
presented with capital cases must do the best we can do
to resolve these questions.
We have attempted to answer your interpretive
questions to the best of our ability and to deal with
certain additional matters which we perceive to be of
significance. No doubt, other questions will occur as
actual trial situations present themselves. Our
principal concern is not with the facial
constitutionality of Senate Bill 106 or with its ability
to survive a broad attack but rather with the problems
which are created and which will inevitably be litigated
because of the ambiguities in the bill and the
interpretive questions which it fails to resolve. While
we recognize that the Florida appellate decisions
construing and applying that State's similar statute may
be of considerable guidance, it is not certain that the
Maryland courts will reach the same results.
The single question which concerns us the most is
the failure to identify the applicable burdens of proof.
We are also troubled by the potential uncertainties
surrounding the hung jury possibility, the lack of a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
