Creating a capital murder offense by establishing the penalty of death for murder in the first degree of a peace officer on duty, and including effective date and applicability provisions

2, murder in the first degree, to include when a person intentionally kills a peace officer, with knowledge that the person killed is a peace officer. The bill specifies that the attorney general may prosecute all actions and proceedings involving capital murder, when in the attorney general’s judgment the interest of the state requires the attorney general to intervene on behalf of the county attorney, or upon request by the county attorney. If a person is indigent and is charged with capital murder, payment of costs for two attorneys is authorized. The supreme court is required to establish standards for the competency of counsel in death penalty cases. The state public defender is charged with establishing teams of qualified lead and cocounsel for death penalty cases, as well as conducting or sponsoring specialized training programs for attorneys representing persons who may be executed. If a capital murder case proceeds to trial and a notice of intent to seek the death penalty has been filed, in addition to any other defenses that may be presented to the charge, the defendant may raise the issue of intellectual disability or mental illness during the time of filing pretrial motions. Once the evidence is submitted to the jury, the court will instruct the jury, at the defendant’s request, that in considering whether a sentence of death is justified, the race, color, religious beliefs, national origin, sex, or other protected classes under Code chapter 216 of the defendant or of any victim is not to be considered. The supreme court shall collect evidence relating to whether the death sentences imposed are excessive, disproportionate, or imposed under the influence of prejudice at trial, which will be available to litigants. The sentence of death is imposed only when the trier of fact (the jury or the court if the defendant has waived the right to a jury trial) unanimously answers two questions affirmatively: (1) whether aggravating circumstances established beyond a reasonable doubt outweigh any mitigating circumstances that may exist; and (2) whether the defendant should be sentenced to death. Mitigating factors the trier of fact may consider include the following: the defendant was under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance; the age of the defendant; the defendant’s ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct due to mental disease but not to a degree to constitute a defense; the defendant has no significant prior criminal history; the defendant was under extreme duress; the defendant did not directly commit the murder; and the defendant’s character or record or the circumstances of the offense. The sentencing proceeding is conducted separately from the finding of guilt or innocence by the same trier of fact. For the sentencing proceeding, the trier of fact (the jury or the court if the defendant has waived the right to have the jury hear the proceedings) is to weigh any aggravating circumstances established beyond a reasonable doubt by the state against any of the enumerated mitigating circumstances that may be presented by the defendant. Evidence of certain juvenile delinquency adjudications is not admissible in any proceeding to determine the sentence. The supreme court shall automatically review a death penalty sentence. The supreme court shall review the trial and judgment separately from the sentencing proceeding. If the supreme court finds error in the sentencing proceeding, the supreme court may remand the case back to district court for a new sentencing hearing. The bill requires the supreme court to examine whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to penalties in similar cases. If affirmed by the supreme court, the penalty would be accomplished by lethal injection. The bill requires the board of corrections to adopt rules pertaining to executions, including rules pertaining to the witnessing of executions. A person who is sentenced to death, but who is pregnant when the warrant of execution is issued, is not to be executed until the person is no longer pregnant. The bill also provides a procedure to stay execution of a condemned inmate who becomes insane after conviction but before execution. An employee of the state shall not be required to perform or assist in any execution and shall not be discriminated against for refusing to participate.3.2, subsection 3, which would relieve a political subdivision from complying with a state mandate if funding for the cost of the state mandate is not provided or specified. Therefore, political subdivisions are required to comply with any state mandate included in the bill. The bill contains severability provisions, takes effect January 1, 2026, and applies only to offenses committed on or after that date.