Document: 476 U.S. 1 106 S.Ct. 1669 90 L.Ed.2d Ronald DeRay SKIPPER, Petitionerv.SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 84-6859. Argued Feb. 24, 1986. Decided April 29, Syllabus Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and rape after a jury trial in South Carolina court. The State sought the death penalty, separate sentencing hearing held before jury. Following State's introduction evidence aggravation offense, petitioner presented as mitigating his own testimony that former wife, mother, sister, grandmother. He then to introduce two jailers "regular visitor" effect he had "made good adjustment" during 71/2 months spent jail between arrest trial. court ruled such irrelevant inadmissible, sentenced death. Supreme Court affirmed sentence, rejecting petitioner's contention committed constitutional error excluding visitor. Held: court's exclusion from visitor denied right place all relevant mitigation punishment. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973; Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 1. Pp. 4-9. (a) record does not support ruling no more than an application rules restricting use lay opinion testimony. 5-6. (b) Nor is there any for improper because it did prevent introducing past conduct jail, but only foreclosed "irrelevant" future adaptability prison life. 6-7. (c) And, contrary suggestion, implausible, on facts, characterize excluded cumulative its harmless error. 7-9. 285 S.C. 42, 328 S.E.2d 58 (1985), reversed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered Court, which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. POWELL, filed concurring judgment, BURGER, C.J., REHNQUIST, joined, post, p. 9. David I. Bruck, Columbia, S.C., petitioner. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., respondent. Justice WHITE Court. Skipper rape. under S.C.Code § 16-3-20 provides bifurcated cases. by offense (principally history sexually assaultive behavior), This testimony, most part, concerned difficult circumstances upbringing. however, both testified briefly conducted himself well also prior period incarceration earned equivalent high school diploma that, if life imprisonment rather death, would behave attempt work so could contribute money family. 2 one time jail. court, Court's decision Koon, 278 528, 298 769 (1982) (Koon I ), be hence inadmissible. Koon I, judge stated, stood rule "whether [petitioner] can adjust or adjust" "not issue this case." App. 11. 3 After closing arguments—during course prosecutor contended pose disciplinary problems likely other prisoners, id., at 13-14—the On appeal, visitor: these witnesses, argued, have constituted evidence, decisions 973 (1978), (1982). rejected contention, stating: 4 "The properly refused admit [petitioner's] supra. However, admitted through mother without merit." 48, 58, 61-62 (1985). 5 We granted certiorari, 474 900, 270, 88 225 consider claim inconsistent with Eddings, we now reverse. 6 There disputing requires cases " 'the sentencer . precluded considering, factor, aspect defendant's character defendant proffers basis sentence less death.' supra, U.S., 110, S.Ct., 874 (quoting Lockett, 604, 2964 (plurality C.J.)) (emphasis original). Equally clear corollary may refuse considering "any evidence." 114, 877. These are established, question them. 7 Accordingly, us whether proffered regarding behavior over seven awaiting deprived It hardly disputed did. contest witnesses attempted stand been well-behaved well-adjusted prisoner, nor dispute drawn favorable inferences probable prison. Although true relate specifically culpability crime committed, see 536, S.E.2d, 774, "mitigating" sense they might serve "as death." 2965. Consideration indicative inevitable undesirable element criminal sentencing: authority must predict person's when engages process determining what punishment impose." Jurek Texas, 428 262, 275, 96 2950, 2958, 49 929 (1976) (opinion Stewart, JJ.). has therefore danger community were executed treated establishing "aggravating factor" purposes sentencing, supra; Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 103 3383, 77 1090 (1983). Likewise, spared (but incarcerated) considered potentially mitigating.1 Under sentencer's consideration. 8 advances several arguments why was, nonetheless, erroneous. First, contends offer incompetent ability future. argues, displace reasonable state-law competency not, evenhanded request admissibility immediately preceded wife's (ruled inadmissible judge, 10) prospects adjustment In seeking three here, made expected them "to testify Id., 11 added). Defense counsel offering events. circumstances, premised assumption planned present been—as conceded oral argument—a "mistake." Such misunderstanding means justify nonopinion bearing 9 Second, echoes arguing character, case, explicitly rely distinction appears purpose whatsoever. proposed prove same establish seems another case altogether, 1, 625 II cert. denied, 471 1036, 105 2056, 85 329 There, stated although "future [is] bear record, offense[,] [p]ast and, therefore, relevant." 3, 626. elusive. As explained above, disposition make peaceful itself nature determination.2 precise meaning practical significance argument assess. Assuming, precluding otherwise admissible explicit convincing should penalty undue fellow prisoners lead useful behind bars imprisonment, pass muster Eddings. Since credibly said consistent —at least effect, cannot 10 Finally, suggest proper merely wife satisfactory, productively cause trouble. think, characterizing implausible facts us. allowed sort naturally tend discount self-serving. disinterested witnesses—and, particular, who particular reason favorably predisposed toward their charges—would quite given much greater weight confidently conclude credible prisoner upon jury's deliberations. himself, argument, dangers prison, went far assert inmates. reasonably (and hence, prison) affected impose sentence. Thus, standard, sufficiently prejudicial constitute reversible state impeded carry out task facets individual offender. resulting stand, again provided new permitted available. 117, 878. judgment insofar affirms remanded further proceedings opinion. 12 ordered. 13 whom CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, judgment. 14 agree vacated, result required our reverse below, "relevant evidence" within those decisions, 877; 604-605, 2964-65, rebut used against him. See Gardner Florida, 430 349, 97 1197, 51 393 (1977). 15 * cross-examining proceeding, adduced kicked cell following arrest.1 commit violent crimes live, referred incident characterization hopelessly man: 16 "[Petitioner's] told her raped With you know about him, do think raper rapee was? And opportunity four sexual abusing loser, will get prison? Will Skipper, big old robust knocks woman [sic] side head, some little boy 17 18 "These submitted defendant. That shown significant positive adjustments confinement education employment skills enable him stable productive prisoner. Didn't kicking there? That's kind is. Kicking bar. bars. ." 14. 19 offered undermine line argument: guards visitor, behaved while relying Carolina's 20 correctly concludes violated due process. Ante, 5, n. vacated ground confidential presentence report permitting report. plurality concluded "the imposed, information deny explain." 362, 1207 J.). 364, 1208 (WHITE, judgment) (applying analysis Eighth Amendment). Gardner, "deny explain" may, rested. aggravated prosecutor's emphasized exaggerated misconduct arrest. Therefore, violates Gardner. III A. 21 unnecessarily abandons narrow broader one, holding Amendment. my view, reasoning flawed. Amendment concerning "character record" offense." 2964. But States, retain traditional authority" determine broad categories described first instance. 12, 2965, 12. long determinations reasonable—as foreclose consideration factors reduce crime, 115-116, 877-878—this respect 22 principles, exclude arrest, tendered prosecution here. "circumstances offense," since concerns committed. say anything necessarily record," phrase 23 Those clearly focus lessens convicted. barred youth, "lack specific intent death," "her relatively minor part crime." 597, 2961. obviously bore strongly degree morally responsible crime; indeed, similar precludes precisely reason. Enmund 458 782, 798-801, 3368, 3377-79, 73 1140 youth "beatings harsh father, severe emotional disturbance." 115, tended diminish responsibility acts, noting youths "are mature adults," 116, 877, 'deserve adolescents capacity control long-range terms adults.' 11, quoting Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Sentencing Policy Toward Young Offenders, Confronting Youth Crime (1978). type thus pertained extent participation crime. time, classifies occurred accused charged. Almost definition, neither excuses reduces commission. cannot, "mitigating Constitution. B 24 recall origins applies today. Ten years ago, Woodson North Carolina, 280, 2978, 944 (1976), determined States "particularized aspects each defendant." 303, 2990 opinion). Roberts Louisiana, 325, 333-336, 3001, 3006-07, 974 determination flowed conviction "individual always measured category committed." Furman Georgia, 408 238, 402, 92 2726, 2810, 33 346 (1972) (BURGER, dissenting), quoted Woodson, 298, 2988. Roberts, 333, 3006. reasoned, unconstitutionally arbitrary execute man showing "just appropriate sentence." 304, 2991. Cf. 25 followed Woodson. follows companion bound central fundamental justice execution. recognized society important legitimate interests retribution deterrence, provide necessary justification imposing penalty. Gregg 153, 183-187, 2909, 2929-32, 859 (joint Society's desire strong played role 2960-2961. Similarly, deterrent force defendants reduced choice. Evidence age history, directly simply interest lessened knowledge brutal murderer, self-interested reasons, model deportment society's deterrence served allowing murderer avoid counsel's advice tightly controlled environment.2 IV 26 Even apparent fell scope sentencing. One arrested particularly every incentive flawlessly spare life.3 Good rarely predictive imposed. For reason, courts probative value. Certainly aid "distinguishing few [the penalty] imposed many not." 313, 2764 concurring), 188, 2932. 27 apparently rests notion decide certain types insufficient value admission. cf. ante, 7, 2. approach, special expertise deciding too speculative insubstantial merit sentencer. 899-902, 3397, makes sense, then, substitute relevance legislatures. intrusive review context guard fundamentally unjust executions. plausibly equate refrained assaulting anyone leave involved here subject requirements factor underscored urged return trusted returned Where relies prediction dangerousness asking afforded point; elemental requirement "on 1207, hold mitigating. example, quarrel statement "how often defendant] take shower" determination. Plath, 281 15, 313 619, 627, 467 1265, 104 3560, 82 862 (1984). us, suggestion personal hygiene practices. Rather, suggesting disciplined adjustability unquestionably goes feature highly colloquy took close cross-examination: "Q: You got Horry County cell, right? "A: Yes, Sir. you. [T]hat's are, nice today, right?" 7. noted murders, undoubtedly deterrent." 185-186, 2930-2931, (1976). 186, 2931 (actual contexts "is complex factual resolution legislatures"). inevitably diluted escape execution based nothing responsibility. consequences mistakes extend occur, able criteria, graver risk injustice executing others. 311-314, 2763-65, concurring). find accept proposition Constitution compels factors, willingness conform rules, plainly advancing retributive goals. today's competent defense instruct clients like Eagle Scouts trial, cases, customary advise client courtroom. indeed novel doctrine compliance charged becomes must—as matter law—consider passing

Category: 0