Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the appeal of Robert Patrick Craig, who was convicted in 1981 of two counts of first-degree murder, with a jury recommending death for one victim and life imprisonment for the other. The trial court imposed two death sentences, but the refusal to consider Craig's good behavior while incarcerated prompted an appeal. On remand, a new judge, Don Briggs, limited the resentencing hearing solely to Craig's behavior during incarceration without empaneling a new jury. The appellate court cited Corbett v. State, stating that a substituting judge must conduct a new jury sentencing if the judge did not preside over the original penalty phase. Consequently, the court vacated the death sentences and ordered the empaneling of a new jury to recommend a sentence for one of the murders, while the judge will determine sentences for both. The court mandated the completion of this proceeding within ninety days, criticizing the previous four and a half year delay and emphasizing the need for expediency in future cases.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of Defendant's Behavior During Incarcerationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's refusal to consider evidence of the defendant's good behavior while incarcerated was deemed improper, necessitating a remand for resentencing.
Reasoning: The trial court imposed two death sentences, which was affirmed on appeal despite the trial court's refusal to consider evidence of Craig's good behavior while incarcerated.
Remand for New Sentencing Proceedingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court vacated the death sentences and remanded the case for a new sentencing proceeding before a jury due to procedural errors in the original and subsequent hearings.
Reasoning: Robert Patrick Craig's death sentences are vacated and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding before a jury.
Substitution of Judge in Penalty Phasesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The substitution of Judge Don Briggs after the original penalty phase required empaneling a new jury for sentencing, as the substitute judge had not heard the original penalty phase evidence.
Reasoning: Since Judge Briggs did not hear the original penalty phase evidence, the court concludes that the death sentences must be vacated, and a new jury must be empaneled for sentencing.
Timeliness of Resentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized the necessity of timely resentencing proceedings, criticizing the four and a half year delay in this case.
Reasoning: The opinion also notes that the delay of four and a half years in resentencing is unacceptable and calls for timely action in future cases.