This Court automatically reviews every death sentence imposed under Montana law. State v. Sattler, 1998 MT 57, ¶ 91, 288 Mont. 79, 956 P.2d 54; § 46-18-307.
This Court must comply with the provisions of § 46-18-310, MCA, in reviewing a death sentence. State v. Keith, 231 Mont. 214, 222, 754 P.2d 474 (1988). We therefore adhere to the standards of review provided for in § 46-18-310, MCA. State v. Smith, 280 Mont. 158, 170, 931 P.2d 1272, 1279 (1996). Our review, conducted from a statewide perspective rather than from the individualized perspective the sentencing court must apply, serves as a check against arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. State v. Sattler, 1998 MT 57, ¶ 91, 288 Mont. 79, 956 P.2d 54.
Section 46-18-310, MCA, provides that this Court "shall uphold the sentencing court's findings of fact issued pursuant to 46-18-306 unless those findings are clearly erroneous. The supreme court may not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court in: (a) assessing the credibility of witnesses; drawing inferences from testimonial, physical, documentary, or other evidence; or (c) resolving conflicts in the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing or considered by the sentencing court." Section 46-18-310(2), MCA. See also State v. Sattler, 1998 MT 57, ¶ 110, 288 Mont. 79, 956 P.2d 54 (citing § 46-18-310(2), MCA, and concluding that this Court's automatic review of death sentences includes "whether the evidence supports the sentencing court's findings regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances").
When the death penalty has been imposed, the Legislature has directed this Court, because of the nature of the penalty involved, to expeditiously review the record and determine if any errors have been committed resulting in the imposition of an illegal sentence and to determine if a legal sentence is appropriate in the circumstances..
This Court is compelled to determine whether the punishment of death is disproportionate in relation to the crime for which it is imposed. In undertaking such a consideration, we are directed by statute to consider whether the sentence was imposed as a result of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors; whether evidence supports the sentencing court's findings regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and defendant. We make such an assessment based upon our independent review of the trial record and transcript, and of the record and transcript of the sentencing hearing. In so doing, we are not usurping the position of the district court as the primary sentencing entity in Montana's system of criminal jurisprudence; rather we mean to insure that a penalty as unique in its severity and as irrevocable as the death penalty is not wantonly and freakishly, or arbitrarily and capriciously imposed. State v. Coleman, 185 Mont. 299, 306, 329-30, 605 P.2d 1000, 1006, 1018 (1979).