21-4625.
History: L. 1990, ch. 99, § 5; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The Kansas Hard-Forty Law," The Honorable Tom Malone, 32 W.L.J. 147, 153 (1993).
"The Wizardry of Harmless Error: Brain, Heart, Courage Required When Reviewing Capital Sentences," Marla L. Mitchell, 4 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 1, 51, 53 (1994).
Survey of Recent Cases, 43 K.L.R. 996 (1995).
"The Problem of Implementing a Constitutional System of Capital Punishment," Stephen R. McAllister, 43 K.L.R. 1039, 1066, 1067, 1085 (1995).
"Federal Constitutional Requirements Governing Trial, Sentencing and Direct Review in Capital Cases," Stephen McAllister, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 20, 22, 23, 30, 33 (1995).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Constitutionality and burden of proof of aggravating factors examined. State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156, 170, 834 P.2d 342 (1992).
2. Aggravating sentencing factor not impermissibly vague and does not violate 8 th Amendment. State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279, 300, 845 P.2d 1 (1993).
3. Mid-deliberation jury instruction on premeditation, relevance of manner in which unconscious victim murdered, sufficiency of evidence establishing aggravating circumstances, precedential value of death penalty cases examined. State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761, 787, 788, 851 P.2d 370 (1993).
4. Defendant approved jury instructions therefor cannot raise issue on appeal. State v. Phillips, 252 Kan. 937, 945, 946, 850 P.2d 877 (1993).
5. Death penalty cases have limited precedential value in evaluating factors; phrase "heinous, atrocious or cruel manner" not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Cromwell, 253 Kan. 495, 513, 514, 856 P.2d 1299 (1993).
6. Hard 40 sentencing instruction adopted. State v. Willis, 254 Kan. 119, 130, 864 P.2d 1198 (1993).
7. Whether hard 40 sentence must be vacated based on nonstatutory factors examined. State v. Richardson, 256 Kan. 69, 79, 83, 883 P.2d 1107 (1994).
8. Whether court's failure to advise jury that mitigating factors must be found beyond a reasonable doubt is error examined. State v. Reed, 256 Kan. 547, 563, 565, 886 P.2d 854 (1994).
9. Whether lack of definitions of aggravating factors in hard 40 jury instruction rendered instruction unconstitutionally vague examined. State v. Duke, 256 Kan. 703, 715, 887 P.2d 110 (1994).
10. Vagueness challenge to jury instruction defining terms heinous, atrocious and cruel must be asserted at trial to be considered on appeal. State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830, 839, 896 P.2d 1059 (1995).
11. Hard 40 sentence vacated where insufficient evidence of murder being committed in heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. State v. Cook, 259 Kan. 370, 396, 400, 913 P.2d 97 (1996).
12. Defendant may not waive a jury trial and then insist on a jury for sentencing proceedings. State v. Williams, 259 Kan. 432, 438, 913 P.2d 587 (1996).
13. Subsection (4) aggravating circumstance held not to be unconstitutionally vague. State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 289, 918 P.2d 609 (1996).
14. Evidence insufficient to establish aggravating circumstance that defendant subjected victims to extreme mental or physical cruelty before killing. State v. Follin, 263 Kan. 28, 47, 947 P.2d 8 (1997).
15. Hard 40 sentence reversed; evidence insufficient, beyond reasonable doubt, that ax murder especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. State v. Spry, 266 Kan. 523, 524, 530, 535, 536, 973 P.2d 783 (1999).
16. Convictions of capital murder, attempted rape and aggravated burglary are affirmed; constitutionality of Kansas capital murder statute affirmed; remanded for instructional error and separate sentencing procedure to determine whether defendant should be sentenced to death. State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 40 P.3d 139 (2001).
17. Under facts of case, failure of jury to include "especially" in its jury findings does not invalidate hard 40 sentence. State v. Rice, 273 Kan. 870, 46 P.3d 1155 (2002).
18. Stalking of victim can be relevant to aggravating factor and does not render statute unconstitutionally vague. State v. Kleypas, 282 Kan. 560, 569, 147 P.3d 1058 (2006).
19. Cited; victim impact evidence admissible; aggravating circumstances discussed; notice provisions constitutional; section discussed and applied. State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 102, 108, 110, 112, 113, 119, 122, 183 P.3d 801 (2008).
|
|