
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 31, 1993                   TAG: 9303310095
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

RULING AUTHORIZES JUDGES' DEATH-SENTENCE DISCRETION

The Supreme Court, ruling Tuesday in the case of an Idaho man who admitted killing as many as 40 people, gave states more leeway to impose the death penalty.

The 7-2 decision said an Idaho law allowing the death penalty for murderers who showed "utter disregard for human life" is not unlawfully vague as interpreted by the state's highest court.

Under Idaho law, convicted murderers may be sentenced to death only if at least one of seven aggravating factors - including "utter disregard" - is found.

The Idaho Supreme Court interpreted that factor to apply to a "coldblooded, pitiless slayer."

Writing for the nation's highest court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the phrase "coldblooded, pitiless slayer" properly narrows the type of defendant eligible for the death penalty.

Judges reasonably could determine that not all capital defendants killed in cold blood, O'Connor said. "Some, for example, kill with anger, jealousy, revenge or a variety of other emotions."

But Justice Harry A. Blackmun likened the majority's logic to "nonsense upon stilts."

The phrase "coldblooded" is used routinely to describe all types of murders and thus cannot give meaningful guidance to a sentencing judge, Blackmun said. Justice John Paul Stevens also dissented.

The ruling means the "utter disregard" factor can be used when convicted killer Thomas Creech is resentenced.

Creech pleaded guilty to fatally beating fellow inmate David Jensen at a state prison May 13, 1981, while Creech was serving time for three murder convictions.

An appeals court had thrown out Creech's death sentence for Jensen's killing after finding the "utter disregard" factor too vague.

In other matters, the court:

Heard arguments in a California case on what scientific evidence may be used in federal trials. A ruling, expected by July, could affect a broad range of testimony offered by expert witnesses - from DNA fingerprinting to the health threats of toxic materials in the workplace.

Provided a big-stakes victory for Delaware by ruling that unclaimed dividend and interest payments on securities go to the treasury of the state in which the security-holding brokerage house is incorporated, not where its main offices are located.

by CNB