Gregg v. Georgia CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

No. 74-6257 Argued: March 31, 1976 --- Decided: July 2, 1976

Petitioner was charged with committing armed robbery and murder on the basis of evidence that he had killed and robbed two men. At the trial stage of Georgia's bifurcated procedure, the jury found petitioner guilty of two counts of armed robbery and two counts of murder. At the penalty stage, the judge instructed the jury that it could recommend either a death sentence or a life prison sentence on each count; that it was free to consider mitigating or aggravating circumstances, if any, as presented by the parties; and that it would not be authorized to consider imposing the death sentence unless it first found beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the murder was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of other capital felonies, viz., the armed robberies of the victims; (2) that he committed the murder for the purpose of receiving the victims' money and automobile; or (3) that the murder was "outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman" in that it "involved the depravity of [the] mind of the defendant." The jury found the first and second of these aggravating circumstances, and returned a sentence of death. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. After reviewing the trial transcript and record and comparing the evidence and sentence in similar cases, the court upheld the death sentences for the murders, concluding that they had not resulted from prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, and were not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty applied in similar cases, but vacated the armed robbery sentences on the ground, inter alia, that the death penalty had rarely been imposed in Georgia for that offense. Petitioner challenges imposition of the death sentence under the Georgia statute as "cruel and unusual" punishment under the ? and Fourteenth Amendments. That statute, as amended following Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (where this Court held to be violative of those Amendments death sentences imposed under statutes that left juries with untrammeled discretion to impose or withhold the death penalty), retains the death penalty for murder and five other crimes. Guilt or innocence is determined in the first stage [p154] of a bifurcated trial, and, if the trial is by jury, the trial judge must charge lesser included offenses when supported by any view of the evidence. Upon a guilty verdict or plea, a presentence hearing is held where the judge or jury hears additional extenuating or mitigating evidence and evidence in aggravation of punishment if made known to the defendant before trial. At least one of 10 specified aggravating circumstances must be found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and designated in writing before a death sentence can be imposed. In jury cases, the trial judge is bound by the recommended sentence. In its review of a death sentence (which is automatic), the State Supreme Court must consider whether the sentence was influenced by passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; whether the evidence supports the finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance; and whether the death sentence "is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." If the court affirms the death sentence, it must include in its decision reference to similar cases that it has considered.

This Supreme Court case illustrates Amendment in action.

How can an environmental law affect a business

Which of the follow statements about drinking alcohol and driving is true

September 10, 2016: you’ve been assigned to investigate a hit-and-run incident. when you arrive at the scene, it’s raining and foggy. the roads are slick. it looks like the crash occurred during the early evening, about 5: 30 pm, a couple hours before dark. you notice a green 2010 chevrolet camaro lying off the road on an embankment and a blue 2014 toyota camry several yards back. both vehicles are damaged. robert b., the driver of the camaro, had severe back injuries and was taken to the hospital. the only witness is the toyota driver, fred h. fred h. was driving in the right lane when the accident occurred. according to fred, a red ford pickup truck (year and model unknown) suddenly swerved across the highway from the left lane. the pickup truck hit the front left side of the camaro in one of the center lanes, pushing it off the road before speeding away. the camaro lost control and sideswiped the toyota as it skidded across the highway, denting the toyota’s left side panels. the camaro then skidded across the grass to the right of the highway and crashed into a low concrete wall. the hood and both sides of the camaro have extensive damage. the toyota driver pulled up behind the camaro and called the police. the accident occurred near miami, florida, on i-95 northbound, a 5-lane highway. it happened just before the exit 16 offramp. fred h. and robert b. both passed breathalyzer tests. neither had any passengers in the car. as you search the scene, you notice: tire tracks/skid marks left on the pavement deep red scrapes across the camaro’s panels and green scrapes across the toyota’s panels broken car window fragments of a hood or panel a torn rag an empty beer can deep tire marks and footprints in the mud of the embankment at the scene use the information above to answer the following questions. for each of a – e above, give an example of a type of evidence you could collect from that item and how you would collect it. (one to two sentences each) fill out a crash form for the incident. use the form florida crash report and use the information in the description above to create a brief three- to five-sentence summary for the “narrative” section. use the witness’s description to draw a diagram of the incident. if you can’t find a piece of information for the form, just leave that part blank. impression evidence three separate tire marks were collected from the scene. the marks were found in a pattern that supports fred’s version of events. three tire tread marks, a, b, and c. tire a appears to be worn flat in the middle from overinflation, tire b is narrow and appears worn on the outside edges, tire c looks normal and is not worn at all tires leave different types of marks based on their wear patterns. for example, tires that are constantly flat will leave different impressions than tires that are normally inflated or overinflated. the tires tend to wear out on the parts that are most exposed to the road. you checked out the tires of the two vehicles at the scene. here’s what you found: two tires side by side. a camaro tire which appears to be in good shape, and a toyota tire which appears worn on the outside edges the camaro had normal tires, but the toyota’s tires were a little flat and overly worn on the outside edges. the condition of the red ford truck’s tires is unknown. match the three impressions with the cars that most likely created them. what can you hypothesize about the red pickup’s tires? could this have anything to do with the accident? explain your answer. (two to four sentences) a red pickup fitting fred’s description was later seen running a stoplight. police pulled it over for a check. its tire impressions looked like this: a single tire tread mark which appears worn on the outside edges based on the evidence, do you think this was the same red pickup that rammed the camaro? why or why not? (one to two sentences)