Alters procedures relating to sentencing procedures and jury charges in capital cases

Summary of provisions

Section 1 and 2 of the bill would amend subdivisions 1 and 10 of section 400.27 of the Criminal Procedure Law to include, with regard to conviction for murder in the first degree as defined by Penal Law § 125.27 (1) (a) (i), (iii) or (xiii), among the list of sentences the jury is permitted to impose (death or life imprisonment without parole) following a conviction of Murder in the First Degree, an indeterminate sentence with a minimum ten11 of between 20 and 25 years, to be determined by the court, and a maximum term of life imprisonment.

Section 2 also requires the court in these cases, in its charge, to instruct the jury that in the case of a jury deadlock (the jury is unable to unanimously agree on any of the three permissible sentencing options); the defendant would be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

Section 3 of the bill would amend subdivision 11 of section 400.27 of the Criminal Procedure Law to conform to sections 1 and 2 of the bill.

Section 4 of the bill contains a severability clause.

Section 5 of the bill would provide that the bill takes effect immediately.

Justification

On June 25, 2004, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court ruled (4-3) that the State's Death Penalty statue is unconstitutional because of its jury deadlock instruction (People v. Stephen LaValle). The disputed instruction provided at the penalty phase that jurors must decide unanimously whether a defendant should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment without parole, but also that if they fail to agree, the court would sentence the defendant to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving a minimum of 20 to 25 years. The court concluded that this instruction "gives rise to an unconstitutionally palpable risk that one or more jurors who cannot bear the thought that a defendant may walk the street again after serving 20 to 25 years will join jurors

favoring death in order to avoid the deadlock sentence: " The court of Appeals further held that the Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution requires that the jury be instructed as to the consequences of a deadlock in their sentencing deliberations.

This bill would remedy for certain provisions of the death penalty statute - Court of Appeals' concern regarding coercion by mandating a sentence of life without parole if the sentencing jury deadlocks, thereby eliminating the possibility that a defendant in such a case could ever be released. Therefore, a juror who, in good conscience, believes that death was not an appropriate sentence in such a case could not be coerced into voting for death out of fear of the defendant's release. Additionally, the court's requirement that the sentencing jury be informed of the result of their inability to reach a unanimous sentencing verdict, is met by adapting the existing instruction to reflect the new jury default sentence of life without parole.

Legislative history

2009: A.2951

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

Immediately.