Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Kleypas

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 28, 2001No. 80,920Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAbbott, J.

I have no quarrel with anything in Justice Davis’ dissent, which I *1137consider to be excellent. I would merely add the following thoughts.

The American Law Institute Model Penal Code § 210.6(2) (1985) (adopting 1962 official draft) requires mitigating circumstances to outweigh aggravating circumstances. The Model Penal Code provides for a hearing either before a jury or before a judge, and the language indicates that if the sentencer finds one of the aggravating circumstances it still may not impose the death penalty unless it “further finds there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Zant v. StephensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Boyde v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Walton v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. McGautha v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API