Court finds death penalty barred if one juror finds retardation

The 4-2 decision by New Jersey's highest court clarified an October decision in which it decided that prosecutors no longer have to prove a defendant is mentally fit.

That ruling put the burden of proving mental retardation on defendants and aligned New Jersey with most other states.

The dissenters in that case also dissented in Monday's clarification, maintaining that prosecutors should be required to prove the absence of retardation beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be executed.

The ruling stemmed from the case of Porfirio Jimenez, a Honduran day laborer in prison on charges he sexually assaulted a 10-year-old boy before murdering him in 2001 in Morris County. Jimenez's lawyers claimed he was mentally retarded, with an IQ of 68.

The public defender's office, which is representing Jimenez and wanted these issued addressed before he went to trial, was "gratified" by Monday's ruling, spokesman Tom Rosenthal said.

The state attorney general's office, which asserted that the death penalty is only barred when the jury unanimously finds that the defendant is mentally retarded, had no immediate comment.

The ruling is another blow to the death penalty in New Jersey, where the Legislature is considering a bill that would abolish it. New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 but hasn't executed anyone since 1963.
The Legislature imposed an execution moratorium in December 2005 when it formed a commission to study the death penalty.

Jimenez, a landscaper who lived in Morristown, faces trial on charges that include murder, kidnapping and attempted aggravated sexual assault. He is charged with the May 20, 2001, killing of Walter Contreras Valenzuela, whowas last seen at a church carnival.
Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)