« Ind. Courts - Reminder: Interview Schedule for the 2nd District Court of Appeals Vacancy | Main | Environment - More on: IDEM revokes approvals for confined feeding operation in Huntington County; writ sought »

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues one ruling today

State of Indiana v. Zolo Agona Azania is on interlocutory appeal from the Allen Superior Court. Justice Sullivan writes the 22-page majority opinion, in which Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, J., concur. Boehm, J., dissents with a separate opinion. Rucker, J., dissents with a separate opinion.

Justice Sullivan writes:

In prior proceedings, this Court affirmed Zolo Agona Azania’s conviction for the 1981 murder of a Gary police officer but set aside the recommendations of two juries that he should receive the death penalty. The trial court has now ruled that, given circumstances caused by the long delay in this case, Azania’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process would be violated if the State continues to seek a death sentence. We find that neither the delay nor any prejudice that Azania may suffer from it violates his constitutional rights. The State may continue to seek the death penalty. * * *

We hold that the delay and any resulting prejudice in this case will not violate Azania’s due process rights if the State seeks the death penalty at a new penalty phase trial. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new penalty phase trial.

Justice Boehm's 5-page dissent begins:
I respectfully dissent. I agree with Justice Rucker that due process concerns can arise if the passage of time substantially impairs the opportunity of a capital defendant to present mitiga-tion evidence. However, in my view, it is not solely the passage of a substantial amount of time that can raise these concerns, but whether that time was attributable to failures of the State’s criminal justice system. Ultimately, as I see it, this case presents an issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

Twenty-five years have passed since Azania was convicted of this crime in 1982. As ex-plained below and as the trial court found, the bulk of that time is attributable to flaws in the criminal justice system, not to anything Azania did. In the meantime Azania has remained a death row inmate. That amount of time on death row at the hands of others is not unusual; it is extraordinary. I conclude that further pursuit of the death penalty at this date violates the Indi-ana Constitution by imposing punishment that is both cruel and unusual. Accordingly, I would affirm Judge David’s order dismissing further pursuit of the death penalty in this case.

Justice Rucker's 4-page dissent begins:
I agree with the trial court that given the circumstances caused by the long delay in this case, Azania’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process would be violated if the State continues to seek a death sentence. A part of the due process violation includes Azania’s Eighth Amendment right to present meaningful evidence in mitigation. His inability to do so is of itself sufficient to preclude the State from seeking the death penalty. Therefore I dissent.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 10, 2007 03:07 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions