proportionality of a death sentence is a question of law” and “clearly a question for this Court.” Id. at 520 n. 6, 873 P.2d at 266 n. 6. Simply because Clark characterizes this argument as offering disproportionality evidence as mitigation to the jury does not subvert what this Court has previously decided: proportionality review is a function of this Court, not the jury. The trial court correctly concluded that only this Court should review proportionality, as this Court explicitly held in Wyrostek. {31} Additionally, the State reasons that proportionality evidence has the same problems as evidence regarding a religious leader’s testimony of church doctrine in that the focus does not directly concern Clark and his crime. See State v. Smith, 280 Mont. 158, 931 P.2d 1272, 1282 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The State also notes that “receiving
holding that trial court did not err holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to consider defendants offered proportionality evidence because this type of evidence does not relate to the specific defendant and the specific crimes before the sentencing judge and therefore cannot be considered as a mitigating factor and because the montana supreme court reviews proportionality of death sentences holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court holding that trial court did not err in refusing instruction that would have directed jurors not to consider specific acts of negligence in determining medical centers liability