Document: 494 U.S. 433 110 S.Ct. 1227 108 L.Ed.2d 369 Dock McKOY, Jr., Petitioner,v.NORTH CAROLINA. No. 88-5909. Argued Oct. 10, 1989. Decided March 5, 1990. Syllabus Petitioner was convicted in a North Carolina court of first-degree murder. In the trial's sentencing phase, jury made binding recommendation death after finding unanimously, as required by instructions given both orally and written verdict form: (1) existence two statutory aggravating circumstances; (2) eight possible mitigating (3) that circumstances found were insufficient to outweigh found; (4) sufficiently substantial call for imposition penalty when considered with found. The State Supreme Court rejected petitioner's challenge his sentence, distinguishing Mills v. Maryland, 486 367, 1860, 100 384. Mills, this reversed sentence imposed under Maryland's capital punishment scheme because precluded from considering any evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on particular circumstance supported evidence. contrast Maryland procedure, which impose if it at least one no or unanimously did not ones, emphasized Issue Four Carolina's allowed recommend life imprisonment felt even had several ones. also reasoned whereas remained "legally relevant" long more presence evidence, system introduced support factor find is legally "irrelevant" can be excluded jurors' consideration. Held: unanimity requirement impermissibly limits consideration hence contrary Court's decision supra. State's does ameliorate constitutional infirmity created requirement. Although opt without circumstances, make its based only finds Two. Thus, holdout juror prevent others giving effect they feel calls lesser sentence; moreover, agree there are some cannot give supporting those same circumstance. addition, state court's holding distorts concept relevance. present become mitigation merely either believe been proved factual matter think circumstance, though proved, mitigated offense. Furthermore, mere declaration irrelevant" bar sentencer could reasonably warrants less than death. Skipper South Carolina, 476 1, 106 1669, 90 1; Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 1. misplaces reliance Patterson New York, 432 197, 97 2319, 53 281, view standard proof intended ensure reliability involve validity procedure Eighth Amendment, requires States allow It answer permitted "consider" decides collectively, Two, whether exist. each consider deciding ultimate question vote may foreclosed failure Moreover, requiring factors circumstances. Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 327-328, 109 2934, 2951-2952, 256. Pp. 439-444. 323 N.C. 372 S.E.2d (1988), vacated remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined. post, p. 444, 445, filed concurring opinions. KENNEDY, an judgment, 452. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, joined, 457. Malcolm Ray Hunter, Raleigh, petitioner. Joan Herre Byers, respondent. Justice MARSHALL Court. 1 case we address constitutionality scheme. That prevents considering, penalty, find. We hold our 384 violates Constitution preventing therefore vacate remand resentencing. 2 * McKoy, Stanly County, During phase McKoy's trial, trial instructed jury, form, four questions determining sentence. One asked: "Do you beyond reasonable doubt, following circumstances?" App. 6, 23. circumstances: McKoy "had previously felony involving use threat violence person"1 murder committed against deputy sheriff who "engaged performance official duties."2 answered "Yes" proceed next Issue. 3 Two Id., 8, 24. judge submitted With respect follows: "If do preponderance so indicate having your foreman write, 'No,' space" form. 10-13. form reiterated requirement: "In space write 'Yes,' Write, evidence." 4 capacity "to appreciate criminality conduct conform requirements law impaired."3 nonstatutory "borderline intellectual functioning IQ test score 74." 25. not, however, crime while "under influence mental emotional disturbance"4 age time crime, 65, factor.5 failed decades exhibited signs disturbance defect went untreated; aggravated poor physical health; ability remember events day actually impaired; other arising value.6 5 Because Three, doubt is, are, you?" 13, 26 (emphasis added). issue "Yes," proceeded final issue. 14, again responded "Yes." Pursuant instructions, 6 pendency direct appeal decided There, "a probability . well have thought such circumstance." 384, S.Ct., 1870. allowing "holdout" violated principle established Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978), U.S., 375, 1865. 7 challenged basis Mills. split decision, purported distinguish grounds denied relief. First, noted "Maryland's 'found' 'find' circumstances" "if circumstances." 40, 12, 33 (1988). contrast, stated, allows feels has Ibid. 8 Second, asserted id., 41, S.E.2d, 34, "in becomes irrelevant prove defendant fails satisfaction supports factor," 33. believed "relevance" significant stated footnote " '[n]o argued here, nor Appeals suggest, rendered vote.' 34 (quoting n. 7, 1865, 7). thus interpreted define exclude Accordingly, upheld II 9 Despite inventive attempts clearly governs case. Four, like where fact remains finds. 'sentence death.' 110, 874, (1982), quoting Lockett, supra, 604, 2964 (plurality opinion). them their deliberations Issues Three This precise compelled us strike down See 374, Our limited cases exist all. Rather, held would "height arbitrariness require penalty" able 11 10 "relevant" proves "[I]t universally recognized relevant inquiry, need conclusively issue, but 'any tendency consequence determination action probable evidence.' Jersey T.L.O., 469 325, 345, 105 733, 744, 83 720 (1985), Fed.Rule Evid. 401. meaning relevance different context proceeding. As Chief dissent case: "Relevant tends logically disprove fact-finder deem value. Whether accepts rejects bearing evidence's relevancy. exists persuaded necessary item alone convinces trier sufficient convince truth proposition offered." N.C., 55-56, 45 (Exum, C. dissenting), citing M. Graham, Handbook Federal Evidence § 401.1, (2d ed. 1986). Clearly, then, offense.7 13 holdings (1986), show Skipper, adjusted prison life. ground "by nature determination" might "would pose undue danger jailers fellow prisoners lead useful behind bars sentenced imprisonment." 1672. Similarly, Eddings, ruled defendant's troubled childhood disturbance. Criminal affirmed, legal excuse criminal liability. undoubtedly conduct. 113-116, 876-77. 14 Nor save characterizing 281 (1977), misplaced. case, due process York charged second-degree affirmative defense extreme order reduce manslaughter. constitutionally provide defense. But "nevertheless chooses recognize mitigates degree punishment, assure itself certainty." 209, 2326. Patterson, Amendment. cases. Any barrier must fall. Mills: 15 "Under decisions, sentencer's interposed statute, supra; Hitchcock Dugger, 481 393, 107 1821, 95 347 (1987); court, evidentiary ruling, true single juror's Whatever cause, conclusion necessarily same: 'Because [sentencer's] risks erroneous plain violation duty resentencing.' 117, *, 878, (O'CONNOR, concurring)." 1865-1866. 16 answer, course, means that, system, Four: justify Under 17 Finally, reject contention 384-389, 1870-72. Such consistent treatment A limit places limitation 256 (1989): 18 'In carefully defined standards narrow discretion cause decline sentence.' McCleskey Kemp, 279, 304, 1756, 1773, 262 (1987) original). Indeed, precisely should directly related personal culpability character record offense." 2951. III 19 conclude Mills.8 further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 20 ordered. 21 concurring. 22 There nothing I understand it, invalidate federal instruction he she convinced instruction, weigh balance her mind likewise convinced. Neither infer forbids place burden persuasion On basis, concur 23 24 join separately underscore my conviction controls correctly decided. 25 dissent's view, simply assumed, decide, invalidity unanimously. characterization squared text Part addressed permissible. concluded rule mandating unanimous agreement before forbidden decisions (1982). essential step rationale overturning statute. Ambiguous violate Amendment ambiguous. And precluding unanimously—would wholly lacking significance invalid susceptible plausible interpretations, interpretations unconstitutional. acknowledges "there language suggesting contravene decisions." Post, 459. contends, suggestions dicta. propriety properly since conceded unconstitutional rule. position untenable. 27 disputed, resolution constitute precedent. unusual, hardly unheard of, decide parties joined See, e.g., Teague Lane, 489 288, 1060, 103 334 (1989); 313-314, 2944, (1989) (holding principles apply sentencing). wisdom issues briefing argument questioned, see Teague, 326-327, 1084. (BRENNAN, dissenting); Penry, 349, 2963. (STEVENS, part part), suggested heretofore precedential approach stare decisis respondent timely concession, avoid recurring litigated propitious time.1 litigants seeking rely scour briefs determine what points contested. law. 28 contending section brief began: "The underlying Legislature weighing process." Brief Petitioner, O.T.1987, 87-5367, 9. bulk response devoted interpret manner possible. contended, however: 29 interpretation statute proffered restriction existed weighed appropriate However, relate restrictions 'input,' subsequent deliberative process. twelve component parts, entity. rejection introduction full determination. impediment type Eddings. Kirkley, 308 196, 302 144, 157 (1983)." Respondent 19-20. 30 quotes first passage, "concession" invalid. remainder paragraph sets forth advances today, compare 465-466,2 suggestion point rather peculiar. quoted above concludes citation Kirkley—the attack Read context, plainly summary Mills' argument, admission correctness. determined State, entitled defend Appeals' judgment alternative read considered, dictates raised it.3 31 remain convinced, apparent me here implicates concerns expressed pointless ask jurors. jury: persuasive, then right guaranteed effectively negated, 12th member body. If provided presented foreperson, whatpor tions impaired. permits individuals exercise veto makes impairment severe. 32 suggests announced aberration, quirk jurisprudence. fact, represents extraordinary departure way juries customarily operate. Juries typically called upon render verdicts understood pieces bottom line.4 Plainly general reach preliminary underlie verdict.5 compare, example, presents testimony alibi witness. surely supposed enforce credibility providing weight every deemed worthy belief. interfere accused factfinder, just impairs sentencer. out, rules defendants proving defenses. (1977). For reasons, these point. reasoning affirmative-defense appears rest "greater power includes lesser" argument: all, take placing defendant. greater prohibiting introducing inapposite here. analogy confuses concepts proof. To say placed says about situation jurors, others, satisfied. presumes once elements offense jury's results (just creates "finding" present); clear conviction, hung outcome. Harris, 89 R.I. 202, 207, 152 A.2d 106, (1959) (although bears insanity, vast difference between persuasiveness agreement. sanity reached") peculiar defendant, disagreements among satisfied resolved favor State. described scenarios operation result death, (in scenario) outweighed aggravation. hypothetical, six present, twelfth prevented being stage 373-374, 1864-65. second scenario, aggravation, "it certainly height postulated." assessment seems unanswerable. 35 Of factor, appropriateness light possibility aberrational views will thwart majority sometimes work injustice outweighs aggravation compensated escape appropriate. "symmetry" very antithesis command "character individual offender indispensable inflicting death." Woodson 428 280, 96 2978, 2991, 49 944 (1976) vacated, 36 judgment. 37 Jury unanimity, true, accepted, vital mechanism real deliberation occurs room, reflect conscience community. Yet unique interaction produce lacks and, this, inappropriate 12. 38 consequence, operate construed "the arbitrariness." sole rationale, today's stretches proper bounds threatens add confusion already area 39 precedents evident itself. begins: 40 "Petitioner's straightforward, illustrated hypothetical contends scheme: 41 'If eleven Consequently, inappropriate.' 11." 42 Petitioner's counsel discussion oral 43 problem agreeing it's position, difficult imagin[e] arbitrary luck draw: get juror?" Tr. Oral Arg., pp. 23-24. 44 central idea passages undeserved. stated: block [consideration factor], consequently dare risk." Application "intuitively disturbing." More important, through capricious. Given description, fits within line forbidding "caprice," "an unpredictable fashion," "arbitrary" "freakish" means. Franklin 487 164, 181, 2320, 2331, 101 155 (1988); California Brown, 479 538, 541, 837, 839, 93 934 (1987). 46 incident occur gravity outweighing refuses, whatever reason, accept. follow assume will, disregard After balancing performed, result. 'judgment reasoned, moral inherent potential evident. 47 said, stressed much goes, further. addition discussing (1987), (1986). Even so, there, combined result: whatsoever, 48 statement today "[o]ur all."* Ante, 439-440 include requirement, also, albeit override reason vacating exclusive standing alone, itself, invalidated Ohio presentation certain types jury. Hitchcock, applied judicial barred character. recently, (1989), met avenue how thereby making meaningless. 50 progeny stand cut off absolute limiting inquiries severely never none things. mandatory control outcome, imposes used specifically whole. Saffle Parks, 484, 490, 1257, 1261, 415 (1990) "simple logical govern guide reaching decision." novel application enhance findings, dispositive. 51 description "one veto" arbitrariness" alone. ante, casts assigning His concern otherwise spawned confusing litigation over unsupportable claims lower courts, 52 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting. Today holds prohibits structuring channel previous dissent. 54 scheme, guilty murder, separate hearing introduce Specific put forward wishes. specified operative effect, Absent proponent meet persuasion, proved. 55 special asked questions. apre ponderance statutory, nonstatutory, Third, Fourth, 56 taken whole, satisfies enunciated By adequately narrowed class death-eligible murderers. Zant Stephens, 462 862, 877-879, 2733, 2742-43, 77 235 (1983). hand, permitting find, offered ensured "be imposing sentence." 319, 2947, (1989). (beyond doubt) (by evidence), "reduc[ed] likelihood [the jury] fairly capricious arbitrary." Gregg Georgia, 153, 194-195, 2909, 2935, 859 (opinion Stewart, Powell, JJ.). extra measure assurance lightly mechanically imposed. Before petitioner raises, wish briefly assertion past—that "our [in ] case." 439. 58 begins recounting "did dispute [verdict] [i.e., unanimously], improperly 372, 1864 concession ("Under 19.)1 controversy regarding Court—for simple raising adopted regarded saving construction (i.e., preclude circumstance) said fashion. "[t]he critical question," disputed parties, "whether drawn employed 375-376, 1866.2 question, divided. Five Justices risk (as finding) remanded proceedings. 381-384, 1868-1870. misunderstood negligible, affirmed. 391-393, 1873-74 (REHNQUIST, dissenting). 59 "holding [interpreted unanimity], unconstitutional," "strik[ing] scheme," 439, pure revisionism. No except authoritatively Appeals, Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 690-691, 1881, 1885-86, 508 (1975)—which receive sure, contains 374-375, But, WHITE's concurrence, states entirety: 60 instructions. addresses, am reaches correct solution. Hence, opinion." 389-390, 1872.3 WHITE fifth impossible regard resolving 61 contested unambiguously provides defective "from 439 (citing 2964) (internal quotations omitted). answers ultimately dispositive account additional colleagues' disagreement effect. times refers prospect 'holdout' juror" wish, 438, reader misled: appealed opposite. According requires, denying scenario attractive atmosphere, alleged rests "each [must] death," 442 added), "may failure," 443 facts existed, existing mitigating. (at unanimous) control, demanded 438. 62 respect, remotely conclusion. judge's three plurality Fourteenth Amendments sentencer, rarest kind aspect proffers Burger, C.J.) omitted; footnotes relied refused unhappy upbringing. reasoned: "Just neither refuse consider, law, 113-114, 876 Accord, 328, 2952 (failure instruct Texas scope ); (trial belief Florida prohibited corresponding contravened (1986) permit good behavior ). 63 2947 ("[T ]he [mitigating] sentence") added); 394, 1821 ("the evidence") citations emphasis 1671 (mitigating "evidence consideration") 114, [may not] ("Eighth considering" evidence) added; 64 What complains to, so— viz., observes crucial distinction. "There invalidating antisympathy new "do speak directly, to" "how evidence," opposed "what Saffle, 1257. (1988) opinion) ("[W]e undirected unfocused"). short, quite us, pressed into service describing establishing [by invited IV 65 Nothing prior cases, announced; purport traditional practice, indications done constitutional. Those compelling—for perverse claim, likely claim seriously before, it. seek reversal wearing green shirts, anything it—neither text, tradition, suffices. 66 caution, entirely superfluous, mention aspects jurisprudence appear contradict begin with, jury-unanimity approved schemes contexts great importance defendant—for condition self-defense Martin 480 228, 1098, 94 267 Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2903.01, 2929.02 Rule Crim.Proc. 31(A), (1977); N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law 310.80 (McKinney 1971), insanity Rivera Delaware, 429 877, 226, 160 (1976); Del.Super.Ct.Crim.Rule 31(a), Del.Code Ann., vol. 17, 227 (1975).4 67 course today—and thesis empowered "give effect" own view—invalidates benefit number one. Thus tension Leland Oregon, 343 790, 72 1002, L.Ed. 1302 (1952), upheld, 12-member substantive offense, defense, Apodaca 406 404, 92 1628, 184 (1972) (upholding 10-to-2 vote). have, six-person unconstitutional—not, vice nonunanimity, 5-to-1 verdict, 5-to-0 Ballew 435 223, 1029, 234 "presents preservation substance guarantee." Burch Louisiana, 441 130, 138, 99 1623, 1627, (1979). 68 discusses (Patterson), "chooses distinguishes presumably cited, fall." 442. If, contexts, "barrier" evaluation "given advantage, why comparable constitutes mitigation. Or why, latter assuring "reasonable certainty" longer legitimate objective. 69 Likewise incompatible theory guided sentencing. States, "must 'clear objective standards' 'specific detailed guidance' 'make rationally reviewable Godfrey 446 420, 428, 1759, 1764, 398 (1980) (footnotes little guidance bring idiosyncratic notion mitigating, untempered discipline group Until model discretion. specific operates verdict—a device enhancing rationality determinations. Sunderland, Verdicts, General Special, Yale L.J. 253, 261 (1920). enabling reviewing examine findings facilitates appellate review, important safeguard caprice." 198, 2936 "Where authority specify meaningful review available sentences capriciously freakish manner." 195, 2935. 890, 2749; Proffitt Florida, 242, 2960, 2967, 913 70 strikes eminently quality substitutes conveniently evaluated future behave doomsday believes 439-440. collection independent views, body designed deliberate collectively. Williams 399 78, 100, 1893, 1905, (1970) (Sixth "large enough promote deliberation"); (1978) (five-person too small); 232-234, 1036 J.) (small impede deliberation). posed, "deliberate" (Issues Four—whether death), identity "mitigating Each splendid isolation, uniquely degenerated poll. inconceivable be—not tolerated Constitution—but prescribed.5 sum, prohibition Since else adduced believing exists. governing launched modern incursion field sentencing, destructive sound deliberation. When abandon restrict holdings, knowing observing land impossible. officials sworn uphold expound rush comply newly precepts, told complying another opposite direction. Compare Furman 408 238, 2726, 346 (invalidating discretionary penalty), enacted represents. N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(3) 15A-2000(e)(8). 15A-2000(f)(6). 15A-2000(f)(2). 15A-2000(f)(7). 15A-2000(f)(9). "catch-all" provision grouped statutorily specified. value Stokes, 634, 653, 304 184, 196 Pinch, 306 26, 292 203, cert. denied, 459 1056, 474, 74 622 Johnson, 298 47, 72-74, 257 597, 616-617 clearer divided 375-384, 1866-70, 391-395, 1873-75. interpreted, expressly Cf. United W.T. Grant Co., 345 629, 632, 73 894, 897, 1303 (1953) ("[V]oluntary cessation allegedly illegal deprive tribunal hear i.e., moot"). Also 20, ("Petitioner sentencers operating free others. completely discretion"), ("Likewise agreement"). 389, 1872, recharacterizing far concurrence bear event, itself; gloss authoritative. inability deadlock Here assumption exception principle, position. prosecutions, required, Courts "[u]nanimity conclusory question; principal Ferris, 719 F.2d 1405, 1407 (CA9 1983). Duncan, 850 1104, 1110-1115 (CA6 1988); Beros, 833 455, 461 (CA3 1987); Schiff, 801 108, 114 945, 1603, 789 Gipson, 553 453, 456-459 (CA5 1977). Bouquett, 820 165, 169 1987) (questioned F.2d, 1112-1113). bit credited discarded, violation, occurred. analogue, imperfect, protection however; premise "[r]equiring convict insure protected prerequisite consensus required." 458. analogous voting acquit doubt. broad suggest absence Constitution. enhances 11. claimed operated surprise assumed BLACKMUN "defend[ed] Eddings." 448. Presumably gone somewhat "Even mitigation; though, mistakenly nevertheless because, unconstitutional." facially implausible Attorney rash argument—and entertain merits, rejecting would, too, Quite obviously, irrelevant. so; set aside. "[a]mbiguous ambiguous," Due Process Clause misstate detriment—and misstated most authorize comported Hicks 447 343, 2227, 175 (where courts jury). passage relies unlikely argument. addressing constitutionality, given, Appeals. circumstance," objected. appears, constitutional," subdivision entitled: "THE MARYLAND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTE AS INTERPRETED BY COURT OF APPEALS PERMITS FULL CONSIDERATION EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN MITIGATION SENTENCE," 218-219, (1983), cited (and instructions), (for acceptance mitigation, automatic event deadlock) "consideration evidence" 20. sought expected mentioned argument; not. BLACKMUN's argued, 446, Deciding presented. spoke similar now us; interest defense; outcome facts, differently. pronounce authoritative." 448, 3. needed majority. begs question: extent accords views. writes "gloss," common denominator. writing holds, said; assuredly explaining author "glossator" understanding decline, outset joining; nonetheless insists purporting suppose explicitly disclaim company. heard fabricate say, explain understanding. defenses persuasive clear" conviction," "rather jury." 450-451. interesting know jurisdictions cited. verdict—whether unanimous. 1982). raised, guilt defense." Practice Commentary N.Y.Penal Law 25.00, People Morris, App.Div.2d 893, 413 N.Y.S.2d 757 (1979); N.Y.Jur.2d, 188, 335-336 (1983) ("[G]uilt defense"). return guilty. wonders proportion (if 12) grotesque distortion normal blamed announces, fault, operate." 449. Typically, "are case," "no verdict." sort causes legislators pull hair. usual practice. pushed field. intimated decision" ensure, "meaningful review[,] Disparaging practice encouraged, indeed coerced, gives charge administering "bait switch"

Category: 0