Stripling v. State
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of two counts each of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault and was sentenced to death for each of the murders. At issue was whether the trial court erred in its order addressing what burden and standard of proof should apply to defendant's claim that he was mentally retarded; regarding the order of opening statements and closing arguments in the mental retardation phase; and by ruling that it lacked authority to accept a plea of guilty but mentally retarded. The court held that the trial court erred regarding the burden of proof where Georgia's statutory definition of mental retardation, with its requirement that only mental deficiencies capable of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, was not unconstitutional under Atkins v. Virginia; that the trial court did not err by ruling that standard criminal procedures would apply to defendant's retrial on the issue of mental retardation pursuant to OCGA 17-8-71; and that the trial court erred by ruling that it lacked the authority to consider any plea bargain that the parties might be willing to enter into. The court declined to address any additional issues defendant had raised and affirmed the judgment in part and reversed in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.