Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

875 N.E.2d 701

State v. Azania

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 2007

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 2007-11-07

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 2019

4 state decisions

Relies on Helsley v. State · State v. Azania

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-11-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BOEHM, Justice,

¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶2For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in the original disposition of this appeal, State v. Azania, 865 N.E.2d 994, 1010-1013 (Ind.2007), I would grant Azania’s petition for rehearing.

¶3Because a majority has determined that a new penalty phase should be conducted, I express my views on the procedural issues addressed by the majority. I agree that the 2002 amendments to the death penalty statute apply to the penalty phase, and that life without parole is not an available punishment for a crime committed before 1993. My views on the relationship between judge and jury under the 2002 death penalty amendments are set forth in my separate concurring opinion in Helsley v. State, 809 N.E.2d 292, 305-08 (Ind. 2004).

/875/ne2d/701 · .json · Public domain