Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Taylor v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided April 30, 2003No. Nos. 321 & 344, 2001Published

1Concurrence

HARTNETT, Justice (Retired)

concurring.

I disagree that it was proper for the jury to have found by less than a unanimous vote that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. *1059584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 158 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Article I § 4 and Article IV § 19 of the Delaware Constitution. However, I recognize that this Court’s ruling in Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 814 (Del.2003), is binding until set aside, and I therefore concur in the result herein.

Motion for Reargument.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule, Appellant Milton Taylor (“Taylor”)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1996
  3. Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2003
  4. Giustra v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API