Document: 479 U.S. 538 107 S.Ct. 837 93 L.Ed.2d 934 CALIFORNIA, Petitionerv.Albert Greenwood BROWN, Jr. No. 85-1563. Argued Dec. 2, 1986. Decided Jan. 27, 1987. Syllabus A jury found respondent guilty of forcible rape and first-degree murder at his California state-court trial. At the penalty phase, trial court instructed to consider weigh aggravating mitigating circumstances, but cautioned that "must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or feeling." On automatic appeal, Supreme Court reversed respondent's death sentence, holding quoted instruction violated federal constitutional law denying right have "sympathy factors" raised evidence considered when determining appropriate penalty. Held: The in question does violate Eighth Fourteenth Amendments given during phase a capital Pp. 541-543. (a) either Amendment's prerequisites valid sentence sentencers unbridled discretion defendants allowed introduce any relevant evidence. P. 541. (b) improperly focused solely on word "sympathy" instruction. reasonable juror would unlikely single out from other nouns accompanying it, most likely interpret admonition avoid basing decision "mere sympathy" as directive ignore only sort sympathy was rooted introduced phase. (c) By limiting jury's sentencing considerations record evidence, serves useful purpose cautioning against reliance extraneous emotional factors, thereby fosters need for reliability determinations ensures availability meaningful judicial review. 549. 40 Cal.3d 512, 230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516, remanded. REHNQUIST C.J., delivered Court, which WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. J., filed concurring opinion, post, p. 544. BRENNAN, dissenting MARSHALL, joined, Parts II, III, IV, V STEVENS, 547. BLACKMUN, 561. Jay M. Bloom, San Diego, Cal., petitioner. Monica Knox, Los Angeles, respondent. Chief Justice Court. 1 presented review this case is whether an informing jurors they feeling" violates United States Constitution. We hold it not. 2 Respondent Albert Brown 15-year-old Susan J. State had raped another young girl some years prior attack testimony several family members, who recounted peaceful nature expressed disbelief capable such brutal crime. also psychiatrist, stated killed victim because shame fear over sexual dysfunction. himself testified, stating he ashamed criminal conduct asking mercy jury. 3 Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West Supp.1987) provides may "as matter . mitigation including, limited to, circumstances present offense, defendant's character, background, history, mental condition physical condition."* them App. 23-24. But Id., 20. sentenced death. 4 220 637, 709 440 (1985). Over two dissents point, majority issue here Federal Constitution: " 'federal forbids denies defendant factor" .' 537, Cal.Rptr., 649, P.2d, 453, quoting People v. Lanphear, 36 163, 165, 203 122, 680 1081, 1082 (1984). Relying Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 (1982), Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978), Woodson North Carolina, 428 280, 96 2978, 49 944 (1976), ruled "is calculated divert its duty 'any [sympathetic] aspect character record,' related offense trial, deciding penalty." Cal.3d, 453. granted certiorari resolve 476 1157, 106 2274, 90 717 (1986). 5 Amendment jurisprudence establishes separate sentence. First, fates those charged with offenses. Constitution instead requires statutes structured so prevent being administered arbitrary unpredictable fashion. Gregg Georgia, 153, 2909, 859 (1976); Furman 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 (1972). Second, even though sentencer's must restricted, generally regarding 'character offense.' Eddings, supra, U.S., 110, S.Ct., 874, Lockett, 604, 2964. Consideration "constitutionally indispensable part process inflicting death." 304, 2991 (opinion Stewart, JJ.). neither these principles. 6 think determine interferes consideration "The question, however, what declares meaning charge be, rather could understood meaning." Francis Franklin, 471 307, 315-316, 105 1965, 1972, 85 344 (1985); see Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 516-517, 99 2450, 2455, 61 39 (1979). To how instruction, we focus initially specific language challenged." 315, 1971. If fails muster, then instructions whole if entire correct interpretation law. Ibid. In case, reach second step analysis challenged manner render unconstitutional. 7 told contend, did hold, feeling should properly play role determination, factors might favor. Rather, reads "sympathy." Even were agree rational parse hypertechnical manner, disagree both conclusion 8 concentrating noun "sympathy," ignores crucial fact sympathy. insisted focusing one phrase responses are While strained abstract, simply untenable viewed light surrounding circumstances. This end after produced 13 witnesses Yet words transform three days favorable into virtual charade. reject interpretation, understand rely totally divorced adduced 9 highly almost perversely accompany instruction: feeling. Reading whole, must, no more than catalog kind influence juror's vote doctrine noscitur sociis based common sense, hardly hear without concluding meant confine deliberations arising presented, mitigating. 10 An prohibiting juries their decisions irrelevant issues It confining imposition which, think, far turn him. And extent helps limit matters before "need determination punishment case." Woodson, 305, 2991. Indeed, review, safeguard improves process. See Roberts Louisiana, 325, 335, n. 11, 3001, 3007, 974 (1976) POWELL 11 provisions judgment therefore reversed, cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 12 ordered. concurring. squarely presents tension has long existed between central principles our jurisprudence. 189, 2932, Justices STEVENS concluded "where afforded body grave human life taken spared, suitably directed minimize risk wholly capricious action." sentencing, therefore, 'controlled clear objective standards produce nondiscriminatory application.' 198, 2936 (quoting Coley State, 231 Ga. 829, 204 S.E.2d 612, 615 (1974)). Proffitt Florida, 242, 253, 2960, 2967, 913 (joint JJ.) (State provide "specific detailed guidance" body). hand, held able particular offense. (1982); (1978) (plurality opinion). 14 designed satisfy principle made whim, standards, BRENNAN contends "precludes precisely response background elicit." Post, 548. holds merely admonishes "to phase." Ante, 542. 15 my view, about belief, society, commit acts attributable disadvantaged problems, less culpable excuse. emphasis culpability been reflected Anglo-American As observed struggled problem developing system "sensible uniqueness individual." 874. reflect belief directly personal defendant. Thus, imposed stage reasoned moral crime emotion. 16 Because individualized assessment appropriateness inquiry defendant, I itself same time, instructions—taken whole—must clearly inform BRENNAN's dissent illustrates, difficulty attempts remove emotion through misled believing ignored. ----. 17 remand, instructions, combination prosecutor's closing argument, adequately informed responsibility all 8.84.1, Jury Instructions, Criminal (4th ed. 1979) (CALJIC), lists sentencer punishment. Only subsection arguably applies nonstatutory factors: 18 "Any circumstance extenuates gravity legal excuse crime." CALJIC 8.84.1(k). 19 mandating crime, character. Moreover, remarks, prosecutor suggested comments create "legitimate basis finding ambiguity concerning actually the" 119, 879 (O'CONNOR, concurring). 20 open remand obligation respondent, concur 21 whom MARSHALL joins, joins II-V, dissenting. 22 * Adhering view cruel unusual forbidden Amendments, Court's result upon 227, 2950, (1976). However, believed constitutionally under certain affirm reasonably interpreted II 23 invalid precludes "considering, factor, proffers 2964, opinion) (emphasis omitted). Furthermore, cannot stand leaves unclear "[W]e speculate [sentencer] insufficient offset circumstances," since "require[s] us legitimate considered. ." 879, (1982) 24 ways. facial construed trials California, experience state scheme buttress California's own there warrant override court's us. III A. 25 jury: "You 20.1 forbidding take account, face elicit, thus effectively negating intended effect requirement plurality said 2991, induce "compassionate stemming diverse frailties humankind." example, struck down petitioner's failure judge Eddings' troubled childhood factor. parents five, mother alcoholic possibly prostitute, father used excessive deemed decision, 107, 872-873, potential evoking 26 acknowledges appropriate, antisympathy prevents relying "untethered unrelated Brief Petitioner 49, 58. Yet, noted occasions, Easley, 34 858, 875-876, 196 309, 320, 671 813, 824 (1983), gives indication whatsoever distinguish "tethered" "untethered" nonetheless accepts notion require distinction. None reasons offers accepting implausible construction persuasive. 27 finds significant "mere" word, lead counsels logically conclude modified "sentiment," means preclude sympathy." order regarded modifying contends, read modify terms well: logic, versions emotions listed. surely maintain, instance, form prejudice relating hand ever deliberations. describes "no 543. shoulder burden validating 28 argues assume information. equally likely, gone too presentation, that, contexts, look guidance portion appropriately Instructions commonly clarify significance events liberty everything occurs automatically 29 Finally, says accompanied list obviously impermissible naturally "was mitigating." How expected make leap unclear. inclusion expansive inappropriate. average possess understanding antithetical, wide range her deliberation reinforces notion. unrealistic ruling unqualified forms permissible while others rational, telepathic. 30 vast can mean engage tortuous reasoning necessary construe call fidelity latter. assertion channeling direction completely unfounded.2 31 majority's plausible court, save very plausibility lower prospect restrict obfuscate (1979), unconstitutional adequate invalidate 526, 2460. lawful irrelevant, "we do." original). ineluctable, undeniably reasonable—and enough B 32 Our rest seems abstract instruction's plain language. That bolstered system. dates back least 1970, invalidated virtually identical case. Bandhauer, 609, 618, 83 184, 192, 463 408, 416 (1970). you governed see, e.g., Polk, 63 Cal.2d 443, 47 1, 406 641 (1965).3 saved companion "[Y]ou entirely free act according your judgment, conscience absolute discretion," created inconsistency well "by restriction served exception [its] otherwise unlimited discretion." 618-619, 416. backdrop reviewed benefit earlier recent well. 1983 reviewing later drafters '[t]his 1.00 case,' pertaining 876, 5, omitted) use note 1.00). records indicate frequency argument numerous relatives testified behalf Brown, "told good boy time youth knew brought gifts cared siblings." 90. Nonetheless, prosecutor: 35 "They testify, ladies gentlemen, relate Their here, suggest, blatant attempt defense inject feelings appear human, feel although admirable context advocate trying do job, gentlemen steel yourselves kinds reaching "As Judge will instruct you, 90-91 added). 37 upbringing. similar placed cases. Robertson, 21, 188 77, 655 279 "didn't get breaks life" "[t]hat's factor real issue, person Andrew Robertson [the crime] committed." 56 57, 22, 98, 300, 22. He put "went giving Robertson's where born, old was, man, went service. dismissed service Vietnam, declaring: "This ploy. going outside compassion." 38 Still cases, pending illustrate gloss consistently Gates, Cr. 22263, 'It's talk forgiveness Oscar Gates. It's late that. received promised you'd base on, now philosophy religion, mercy, forgiveness, sorry family, guilt part.' 2a Tr. 1286-1287). Walker, 41 116, 222 169, 711 465 (1985), stated: 'I mentioned, guess mention now—I wasn't to—the things elicit Things nothing Mr. Walker belongs large members observations again, case.' 3298). Boyde, 22584, 'is believe, guided emotion, pity, anger, hate, anything like basis.' 3a 4767). '[S]ympathy interesting thing, try overtones it. hard filter emotions, basis. Although that.' 4817). Experience reveals often precluding decreed sentencer. 113-114, 876 ("Just statute considering refuse evidence"). prosecutors product zeal, dispassionate construction, ample reason lends leave impression sense confusion point. past persuasive support invalidation IV whatever defect cured 8.84.1. punishment.4 urges (k) directs account "[a]ny After rejected scope "avoid misunderstanding future," courts add "any [the] 878, 10, 332, 826, 10. reflects attention itself, broader consistent described 8.84.1: committed. operation practice indicates narrow scope. explicitly mentioning "other circumstances" (k), each mitigation. 94. "the authorized consider." 322, 11. Other cases involving crime," interpretation. Payton, 22511, relates 'some somehow operates reduce did. doesn't refer later.' 4a 2125). Evidence 'new Christianity helped module deputies jail custody' prosecutor, referred 'a 'just jailhouse win that's all.' Similarly, Hamilton, 22311, alluded maintained 'from people twelve ago. crimes occurring.' 6a 19B 13-14). Bigelow, 22018, following colloquy occurred motion verdict: 42 'COURT: Now catchall K, [sic] Do want tell me Bigelow? 43 'DEFENDANT: Extenuates well, that's—would sisters brothers, fall childhood, proper parents, and—would extenuation gravity? 44 No, don't would. you've evidently happy give come America innocent man kill Does it?' 6a-7a May 8, 1981, 28). 45 regard address 'this serious looks 'the who[m] someone harm threatened him, miserable.' 7a 3279-3280). 46 justification, practical participants justice system, narrowly, permit wealth State's Brown's Such reading confronted type probable Bandhauer. 1975, (1985): "Nothing sentences makes contradictory carries weight other. Language contradicts explain infirm suffice absolve infirmity." Cf. 2460 (if possibility exists, way knowing defendant] convicted instruction"). 48 subdivision excluding enumeration 8.84.1 exhaustive. contention belied "shall consider, applicable instructed." rebuts contention, types immediately above portions 1978 scheme, "necessarily implie[s] within statutory entitled determination." Boyd, 762, 773, 215 9, 700 782, 790 (1985) (footnote omitted).5 There speculation felt unconstrained listed provided eminently prohibits literally staked psychological problems harsh react sympathetically, stand. acceptance attenuated cure leads affairs declared intolerable. 50 proclaimed fundamental respect humanity underlying individual offender (citation qualitatively different penalty, "there corresponding difference light, close providing requisite assurance fully aware duties. Since composed information eliminated hope gaining Given concern procedures impose considerable baffling strains find acquiesce course action, dissent. 51 52 write separately emphasize point alluded, ante, 545 concurring); 548, page (BRENNAN, dissenting), full focus. 53 defense's goal is, course, receive Balske, New Strategies Defense Capital Cases, Akron L.Rev. 331, 357 accord times one, arise appeal qualities nature. Oral Arg. 38, 46, 48. 54 proceeding, irrational decisions. 195, 2935, When authority, provided, part, instructions. recognized safeguarded power exercise spare life. Caldwell Mississippi, 472 2633, 2640, 86 443 So.2d 806, 817 (Miss.1983) (dissenting (" 'The [mercy] plea sentence' "); ("[T]he rule [v. ] history reflecting law's effort develop once principled humane sensible individual"); 182, 2929 ("Rather, reluctance many irrevocable sanctions reserved small number extreme cases"). 55 ability respond towards always particularly valuable procedure. Long ago, when, dissent, legislation mandatory, sentencer, "regressive ., [would] eliminat[e] element punishment." 413, 2815, adhere strongly opportunity compassion because, recognizing "contemporary values," 181, 2928 JJ.), expression distinctive feature society deeply value. world, perhaps disregard testimony. When, member moved merciful telling she "swayed" arrest restrain response, truly fatal consequences accept, special stark finality respectfully approval scheme. Ramos, 992, 1005, 19, 103 3446, 3455, 77 1171 (1983). Pulley Harris, 37, 53, 104 871, 880, 79 drawn longer (CALJIC). suggests benefits influenced victim. produces undoubtedly instances, draws distinction occasion provision outweigh negate Whatever speculative bestows purchased price. precluded confirmed (1972), (1982). 99, 279, 301 Instruction following: "(a) proceeding existence circumstance[s] true. "(b) presence absence activity involved attempted force violence implied threat violence. "(c) felony conviction. "(d) Whether committed disturbance. "(e) participant homicidal consented act. "(f) justification conduct. "(g) acted duress substantial domination person. "(h) capacity appreciate criminality conform requirements impaired disease affects [sic intoxication. "(i) age "(j) accomplice participation commission relatively minor. "(k) Any Boyd noted, infirmity resulting none "appeared broad encompass every advance consideration," 775, 791, avoided open-ended permitting

Category: 0