Document: Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLOTTE JENKINS, WARDEN v. PERCY HUTTON ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 16–1116. Decided June 19, 2017 PER CURIAM. Respondent Percy Hutton accused two friends, Derek Mitchell and Samuel Simmons Jr., of stealing a sewing machine, in which he had hidden $750. denied the accusation, but remained suspicious. On night September 16, 1985, lured pair into his car and, after pointing gun at each, drove them around town search machine. By night’s end, recovered was hospital with gunshot wounds to head, nowhere be found. Sim- mons survived, found dead few weeks later, also having been shot twice. More than 30 years ago, an Ohio jury convicted aggravated murder, attempted kidnaping. In connection murder conviction, made additional findings: that engaged “a course conduct involving . attempt kill or more persons,” murdered while “committing, attempting commit, fleeing im- mediately kidnapping,” Rev. Code Ann. §§2929.04(A)(5), (7) (Lexis 1982). Because these “ag- gravating circumstances,” law required sentenced “death, life imprisonment without parole, [or] parole eligibility after” no fewer 20 prison. §2929.03(C)(2). Several days rendering its verdict, recon- vened for penalty phase trial. The State argued death penalty. opposition, gave 2 JENKINS unsworn statement professing innocence presented evidence about background psychological pro- file. When presentations concluded, trial court instructed it could recommend sen- tence only if unanimously “prove[d] beyond reasonable doubt aggravating circumstances, Defendant guilty, outweigh[ed] [mitigating factors].” Hutton, 100 St. 3d 176, 185, 2003-Ohio-5607, 797 N.E.2d 948, 958; see §2929.03(D)(2). deliberated recommended death. accepted recommendation finding, “beyond doubt, circumstances mitigating factors.” §2929.03(D)(3). Court Appeals Supreme affirmed Hutton’s sentence. doing so, both con- cluded “the support[ed] finding circumstances.” §2929.05(A); 3d, 187, N. E. 2d, 961; 72 App. 348, 350, 594 692, 694 (1995). courts “independently weigh[ed] all facts determine whether [Hutton] guilty committing §2929.05(A). Both agreed “aggra- vating factors,” sentence warranted. 191, 963–964; 352, 695. case before this concerns subse- quent petition federal habeas relief. 2005, filed such pursuant 28 U.S. C. §2254, argu- ing violated due process rights during According jurors insufficient guidance because failed tell that, when weighing 3 factors, they consider aggra- factors guilt phase. however, not objected court’s instruction raised argument on direct appeal, District concluded claim procedurally defaulted. Mitchell, 2013 WL 2476333, *64 (ND Ohio, 7, 2013); 53 36, 39, n. 1, 559 N.E. 2d 432, 437–438, (1990) (declining address instructions “specifically declined object trial, ha[d] briefed issue” appeal). United States Sixth Circuit reversed. notwithstanding procedural default, “reach merits” “avoid fundamental miscarriage justice.” 839 F.3d 486, 498 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). began analysis Sawyer Whitley, 505 333 (1992). decision, established peti- tioner may obtain review defaulted upon “show[ing] by clear convincing constitutional error, would have [him] eligible under applicable state law.” Id., 336. exception default applied case. Nonetheless, held justified reviewing claim. reasons: First, receive necessary existence circum- stances.” F.3d, 498–499. And second, since “gave as what sider circumstances” record did show jury’s “was actually based 4 any valid 500. merits, giving erroneous instruction. Judge Rogers dissented ground overcome default. wrong reach merits first reason excusing de- fault [found] But had, As pointed out, factors”—engaging designed multiple people kidnaping—“in convicting Hut- ton murder.” 511. Each those findings “rendered penalty.” Ibid. has improperly Nor identify error. Instead, contends is incorrect, analyzed, given That plainly effect decision— delivered unchal- lenged instruction—that were present Mitchell. Circuit’s second reaching mer- rests legal Under Sawyer, if, “but consti- tutional petitioner U.S., 336 (emphasis added). Here, alleged error failure specify Assuming can provide basis should considered 5 following: Whether, proper decided out- weighed circumstances. ask question. whether, (alleged) improper instruc- tions, might relying invalid tence. See 500 (explaining “no circumstances”). court, other words, affected properly approach, justify whenever instructional relevant incompatible Sawyer. Neither nor “show[n] that”—if in- structed—“no juror have” outweigh fact, Appeals, each independently justified. case, hold justice certiorari motion leave ceed forma pauperis are granted, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. It so ordered.

Category: 0