State of Delaware v. Charles M. Cohen, et al.

Supreme Court of Delaware
604 A.2d 846 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statute that shifts the final capital sentencing authority from a jury to a judge and mandates a death sentence if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances is constitutional. Such changes are procedural and do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when applied to defendants whose crimes were committed before the statute's enactment.

Facts:

Several defendants were awaiting trial in Delaware for first-degree murder and faced the death penalty.
All but one of the alleged murders occurred before the enactment of a new death penalty statute.
In 1991, the Delaware General Assembly enacted a new law (68 Del. Laws Ch. 181) that revised the state's death penalty procedures.
The new law shifted the ultimate responsibility for determining a capital sentence from the jury to the presiding judge.
Under the new statute, the jury's role was changed to that of an advisory body that makes a recommendation to the judge.
The new law requires the judge to impose a death sentence if the judge finds that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances.
The statute was explicitly made applicable to all defendants tried or sentenced after its effective date, regardless of when their alleged offenses were committed.

Procedural Posture:

Several defendants were charged with first-degree murder in the Delaware Superior Court, which is the state's trial court of general jurisdiction.
The State provided notice of its intent to seek the death penalty against each defendant.
Prior to trial, the defendants challenged the constitutionality of a newly enacted death penalty statute that was to be applied in their cases.
The Superior Court stayed the capital murder trials pending resolution of the constitutional questions.
The Superior Court certified ten questions of law concerning the construction and constitutionality of the new statute to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
The Supreme Court of Delaware, the state's highest court, accepted the certified questions for review.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Delaware's revised death penalty statute, which makes the judge the final sentencing authority and mandates a death sentence if aggravating circumstances are found to outweigh mitigating circumstances, violate various provisions of the U.S. and Delaware Constitutions, including the right to a jury trial, prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Ex Post Facto Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Moore, J.

No, Delaware's revised death penalty statute does not violate the U.S. or Delaware Constitutions. The court upheld the statute's constitutionality, finding that making the judge the final sentencer and applying the new procedures to crimes committed before its enactment is permissible. First, the mandatory imposition of a death sentence once aggravating factors are found to outweigh mitigating ones does not violate the Eighth Amendment, as the required weighing process itself allows for individualized consideration and is not impermissibly rigid, a conclusion supported by U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Blystone v. Pennsylvania and Walton v. Arizona. Second, there is no constitutional right to have a jury determine punishment; historically, a jury's role was limited to fact-finding on guilt or innocence, not sentencing. Finally, applying the new statute to the defendants does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the changes are procedural, not substantive. The law merely alters the 'methods employed in determining whether the death penalty was to be imposed' but does not change 'the quantum of punishment attached to the crime,' consistent with the holding in Dobbert v. Florida.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the legislature's authority to structure capital sentencing procedures by vesting the ultimate life-or-death decision in a trial judge rather than a jury. It reinforces the critical distinction between procedural and substantive changes in the law for Ex Post Facto analysis, establishing that a change in the decision-maker (from jury to judge) is a procedural modification that does not create an unconstitutional retroactive punishment. The ruling aligns Delaware's capital punishment scheme with those of other states like Florida and provides a clear precedent that procedural adjustments, even if potentially disadvantageous to a defendant, are constitutionally permissible.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State of Delaware v. Charles M. Cohen, et al. (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature