[D]efendant's argument assumes that the evidence was admitted only to prove that he was an adherent of a disfavored religion, and he argues that evidence admitted for that purpose infringes the free exercise of his religious beliefs. The difficulty with defendant's argument is the assumption that underlies it. As explained above, the trial court admitted the challenged evidence because it bore on defendant's motive ...without regard to the specific nature of the motive. Given the trial court's religion-neutral ruling, defendant's state constitutional argument fails.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Evidence of Religious Belief As Motive For Murder Is Admissible Over Free Exercise Challenge
In State of Oregon v. Brumwell, (OR Sup. Ct. March 25, 2011), the Oregon Supreme Court, in reviewing the murder conviction and death sentence imposed on defendant, rejected defendant's argument that evidence of Satanism introduced at the penalty phase of his trial violated his free exercise rights. The evidence at the penalty phase of the trial for murder of a fellow-inmate related to the motive for an earlier murder for which defendant was in prison. The Court held: