a reasonable doubt. See Westvaco Corp. v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 321 S.C. 59, 62, 467 S.E.2d 739, 741 (1995). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that section 56-5-1210 of the South Carolina Code is constitutional. AFFIRMED. BEATTY, KITTREDGE, AND HEARN, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in result only. 1 . Later, the Supreme Court applied , the proportionality principle to hold capital punishment excessive in certain circumstances. See Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 798-801, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982) (finding the death penalty an excessive punishment for felony murder when defendant did not take life, attempt to take life, or intend that life be taken or that lethal force be used); Coker v. Ga., 433 U.S. 584, 592, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977) (<HOLDING>). 2 . We note that the United States Court of
holding the death penalty excessive punishment for the crime of rape holding the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under age eighteen at the time of the crime holding the death penalty disproportionately cruel and unusual when imposed for the crime of rape holding that a death sentence for a conviction for the rape of a child where the crime did not result and was not intended to result in death of the victim was barred by the eighth amendment holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty