|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3798 VETOES
Chief, Criminal Division
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Most of the specific questions discussed herein were
considered by us at the time we prepared the
Administration's capital punishment bill some six months
ago in conjunction with your legislation office. That
bill was later introduced as Senate Bill 374 and House
Bill 785 and is hereinafter referred to as the
"Administration Bill."
2. The statute makes no provision for the impaneling of
a new jury if the trial jury has been discharged or if
the case has been remanded for resentencing by an
appellate court.
3. The caveat must always be added that future decisions
of the Supreme Court may alter what new appears to be a
settled approach to the constitutional questions
concerning imposition of the death sentence. Responsible
analysis following Furman v. Georgia, supra, concluded
that a mandatory death sentence for specified offenses
would stand as the most promising alternative to meet the
Furman decision. Bartholomey v. State, 267 Md. 175
(1972). See 58 Opinions Attorney Gen. 214, 222 (1973).
It must be remembered that the basic constitutional
philosophy contained in Gregg and its companion cases was
enunciated in a plurality opinion, with two justices
finding the death penalty unconstitutional under all
circumstances but with three justices who would appear
ready to accept a mandatory death penalty statute as well
as one providing for the bifurcated trial and sentencing
proceeding.
4. Since the advent of the general severability
provisions of Art. 1, §23, Md. Code Ann., in 1973,
specific savings clauses in each individual statute have
been dispensed with.
5. Subsection (a) provides for manslaughter and
non-capital murder; and subsection (b) provides for
murder "in which the State seeks the imposition of the
death penalty."
6. The Administration Bill dealt with §616 in a similar
manner but, unlike Senate Bill 106, repealed §412 (and
the anachronistic reference to §616(a)) and replaced it
with an altogether new statutory provision dealing with
the return of verdicts against and sentencing of persons
convicted of first or second degree murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. The argument can be made that in a homicide
indictment including a charge of first degree murder for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
