Fair v. the State; Jolly v. the State

Summary

The court upheld the statutory aggravating circumstance for murdering a peace officer against an equal protection challenge, concluding that rational-basis review applies and that the circumstance furthers legitimate deterrence and officer-protection purposes. It held that the defendants' cruel-and-unusual-punishment challenge was not ripe, affirmed denial of immunity because the officers' entry was lawful, and reversed the order requiring a special interrogatory on the defendants' knowledge of the victim's status. The court also vacated the conflict-of-interest rulings and remanded for a new hearing with Fair present or for a valid waiver. Chief Justice Hunstein, joined by Justice Benham, dissented, arguing that the aggravating circumstance lacks a rational relationship to deterrence without a scienter requirement.