In all cases tried by a jury in which the penalty of life imprisonment without parole
may be imposed pursuant to § 11-23-2 or 11-23-2.1, and in which the attorney general has recommended to the court in writing within
twenty (20) days of the date of the arraignment that such a sentence be imposed, the
court shall, upon return of a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree by the
jury, instruct the jury to determine whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the murder committed by the defendant involved one of the circumstances
enumerated in § 11-23-2 or 11-23-2.1 as the basis for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. If
after deliberation the jury finds that one or more of the enumerated circumstances
was present, it shall state in writing, signed by the foreperson of the jury, which
circumstance or circumstances it found beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon return of an
affirmative verdict, the court shall conduct a presentence hearing. At the hearing,
the court shall permit the attorney general and the defense to present additional
evidence relevant to a determination of the sentence to be imposed as provided for
in § 12-19.2-4. After hearing evidence and argument relating to the presence or absence of aggravating
and mitigating factors, the court shall, in its discretion, sentence the defendant
to either life imprisonment without parole or life imprisonment. If the trial court
is reversed on appeal because of error only in the presentence hearing, the new proceedings
before the trial court which may be ordered shall pertain only to the issue of sentencing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1989–2013 · leading case:
State v. Pacheco, 763 A.2d 971 (R.I. 2001).
State v. Pacheco, 763 A.2d 971 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 6× “At a presentence hearing pursuant to G.L.1956 § 12-19.2-1, both sides presented additional evidence relevant to sentencing.”
Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 5× “Finally, Bustamante asserted that the trial justice violated his due process and equal protection rights by denying the jury the right to determine what, if any, aggravated enumerated circumstances were involved in accordance with G.L.1956 § 12-19.2-1 and G.L.1956 § 11-23-2.”
State v. Edwards, 810 A.2d 226 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 4× “See G.L.1956 § 12-19.2-1; State v. Travis, 568 A.”
State v. Graham, 941 A.2d 848 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 3× “” Over defendant’s objection, and in accordance with G.L. 1956 § 12-19.2-1, 16 the trial justice asked the jurors to determine whether they believed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant killed Sanjeev Patel at the direction of T.”
State v. Day, 925 A.2d 962 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Section 12-19.2-1. If the jury determines that one of the enumerated circumstances in § 11-23-2 did exist in a particular case, then § 12-19.”
State v. Brown, 898 A.2d 69 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” The relevant portion of G.L.1956 § 12-19.2-1 provides in pertinent part: "In all cases tried by a jury in which the penalty of life imprisonment without parole may be imposed pursuant to § 11-23-2 or 11-23-2.”
State v. Lassor, 555 A.2d 339 (R.I. 1989).
· cites it 2× “” Section 12-19.2-1. Upon return of an affirmative verdict, identifying one or more of the six circumstances enumerated in § 11-23-2, the trial justice is required to conduct a presentenc-ing hearing.”
State v. Tassone, 749 A.2d 1112 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Immediately after the jurors returned the verdict of guilty of first-degree murder, the trial justice requested that they return to the jury room to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the murder was “committed in a manner involving torture or aggravated battery to the…”
State v. Travis, 568 A.2d 316 (R.I. 1990).
· cites it 2× “’ Section 12-19.2-1. “Upon return of an affirmative verdict, identifying one or more of the six circumstances enumerated in § 11-23-2, the trial justice is required to conduct a presen-tencing hearing.”
State v. Smith, 766 A.2d 913 (R.I. 2001).
“General Laws 1956 § 12-19.2-1 provides in pertinent part: “After hearing evidence and argument relating to the presence of absence of aggravating and mitigating factors, the court shall, in its discretion, sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without parole or life…”
State v. Washington, 581 A.2d 1031 (R.I. 1990).
· cites it 2× “General Laws 1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-19.2-1, as amended by P.L. 1984, ch.”
State v. Gerardo E. Martinez, 59 A.3d 73 (R.I. 2013).
“Based on § 12-19.2-1, the trial justice then conducted a presentence hearing, at which the Attorney General and the defense were permitted “to present additional evidence relevant to a determination of the sentence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.