Document: 494 U.S. 484 110 S.Ct. 1257 108 L.Ed.2d 415 James SAFFLE, Warden, et al., Petitionersv.Robyn Leroy PARKS. No. 88-1264. Argued Nov. 1, 1989. Decided March 5, 1990. Rehearing Denied April 30, See 495 924, 1960. Syllabus Respondent Parks' state-court capital murder conviction and death sentence became final in 1983. The Federal District Court denied his habeas corpus petition, which was based on the argument that, inter alia, an instruction delivered penalty phase of trial, telling jury to "avoid any influence sympathy," violated Eighth Amendment. Appeals reversed, holding that unconstitutional because it effect told disregard mitigating evidence Parks had presented. Held: is not entitled federal relief. principle he urges a "new rule" constitutional law can neither be announced nor applied case collateral review unless comes within one two narrow—and here inapplicable—exceptions. Teague v. Lane, 489 288, 109 1060, 103 334; Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 2934, 106 256. Pp. 487-495. (a) contention Amendment requires allowed base sentencing decision upon sympathy they feel for defendant after hearing constitutes as defined Penry, since state court considering claim at time would have concluded compelled by existing precedent adopt it. Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973, Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 were both decided before 1983, do dictate result urged Parks, those cases hold only State cannot bar relevant from being presented considered during trial's phase, speak how may guide weighing evidence. supra, U.S., 315, S.Ct., 2945 relief sought there did call creation new rule does compel similar here. Nor antisympathy run afoul theory jurors who react sympathetically interpret barring them altogether. At very least, nothing prevents attempting ensure reliability nonarbitrariness requiring consider give defendant's form reasoned moral response, rather than emotional whims or caprice jurors. Similarly, California Brown, 479 538, 542, 107 837, 839, 93 934—which approved prevented responses evidence—is no assistance Parks. It doubtful emotions inferred Brown consistent with Court's precedents. Moreover, gain its benefit, if any, pursuing untenable Brown's reasoning, result, dictated Eddings. 487-494. (b) come either exceptions set forth Penry. first exception invoked, proposed decriminalize class private conduct prohibit imposition punishment particular persons. second also inapplicable, has none primacy centrality type "watershed criminal procedure" contemplates. objectives fairness accuracy are more likely threatened promoted allowing turn whether defendant, eyes community, morally deserving sentence, but strike chord juror. 494-495. 860 F.2d 1545, (CA10 1988), reversed. KENNEDY, J., opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, filed dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, joined, all Part IV BLACKMUN STEVENS, post, p. 495. Robert A. Nance, Oklahoma City, Okl., petitioners. Vivian Berger, New York respondent. Justice KENNEDY Court. 1 issue us respondent Robyn whose His avoid sympathy, violates In 256 (1989), we held will narrow exceptions. This limitation proper exercise jurisdiction applies noncapital cases. id., 314, 2944. We meaning 334 (1989). our prior and, adopted, contravene well-considered petitioner asks Teague. 2 A passing motorist found Abdullah Ibrahim, native Bangladesh, dead inside City gas station where Ibrahim worked. victim died single chest wound inflicted .45-caliber pistol. admitted friend, police obtained tapes statement. said shot afraid tell used stolen credit card purchase gasoline. 3 1978, guilty murder. During offered testimony father, described background character. counsel relied this closing argument, arguing youth, race, school experiences, broken home factors should making decision. He asked show "kindness" consideration background. 4 After instructing must circumstances, statutory nonstatutory, proffered could circumstances evidence, trial following instruction: 5 "You judges facts. importance worth you determine. You sentiment, passion, prejudice, other arbitrary factor when imposing sentence. discharge your duties impartially, conscientiously faithfully under oaths return such verdict warrants measured these Instructions." App. 13. 6 finding aggravating circumstance "committed purpose avoiding preventing lawful arrest prosecution," Okla.Stat., Tit. 21, § 701.12 (1981), sentenced death. 7 affirmed direct appeal Criminal Appeals, State, 651 P.2d 686 (1982), certiorari, 459 1155, 800, 74 1003 (1983). seeking postconviction courts, petition writ arguing, relief, divided panel Tenth Circuit affirmed. 840 1496 (1988). On rehearing, sitting en banc reasons advanced 1545 granted 490 1034, 1930, 104 402 now reverse. 8 petitions courts corpus. As review, determine create holdings 299-301, 1069-1070, 313, If so, announce apply fall into Teague, 307, 1073; 329, 2952. 9 "breaks ground," "imposes obligation States Government," "dictated final." 301, 1070 (plurality opinion) (emphasis original). explicit overruling earlier doubt creates rule; difficult, however, extends reasoning recognized Butler McKellar, 407, 412-414, 1212, 1216-1217, 347 (1990), question answered reference underlying purposes writ. Foremost among ensuring proceedings accordance Constitution interpreted proceedings. ibid. " '[T]he threat serves necessary additional incentive appellate throughout land their manner established standards. order perform deterrence function, . need standards prevailed original took place.' 306, 1073 (quoting Desist United States, 394 244, 262-263, 89 1030, 1040-1041, 22 248 (1969) (Harlan, dissenting). Solem Stumes, 465 638, 653, 1338, 1347, 79 579 (1984) (Powell, concurring judgment). "The 'new rule' therefore validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations precedents made even though shown contrary later decisions." Butler, 414, 1217. Under functional view what rule, task felt conclude seeks required Constitution. 10 contends involve rule. Relying decisions 973 (1978), 934 (1987), final, argues Amendment, required, still requires, disagree adoption 11 Lockett, plurality Ohio statute limited jury's specified requirement individualized 605, 2965. conclusion "the Fourteenth Amendments require sentencer precluded considering, factor, aspect character record offense proffers basis less death." Id., 604, 2964-2965 original; footnotes omitted). 12 Eddings, adopted ripened ruled judge's refusal, matter law, concerning family history upbringing error. reasoned: 13 "Just preclude refuse consider, instance, judge instructed behalf. weight given But excluding consideration." 113-115, 876-877 14 Review convinces There dispute precise each cases: trial. These place clear limits ability define factual bases made. Indeed, Hitchcock Dugger, 481 393, 398-399, 1821, 1824-1825, 95 (1987) (instruction advisory nonstatutory refusal same); Skipper South Carolina, 476 4-5, 1669, 1670-1671, 90 (1986) (exclusion regarding postoffense conduct). 15 directly, all, here: instruct render without sympathy. relating, permitted decision, simple logical difference between rules govern reaching thus say large majority rejected challenges instructions been unreasonable concluding violate Byrne 847 1135, 1138-1140 (CA5 1988); People Emerson, 122 Ill.2d 411, 442-443, 119 Ill.Dec. 250, 263, 522 N.E.2d 1109, 1122 cert. denied, 488 900, 246, 235 (1988); Ramseur, N.J. 123, 295 -299, 524 A.2d 188, 275-277 (1987); Steffen, 31 St.3d 111, 125, 509 383, 396 485 916, 1089, 99 250 Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 169, 359 S.E.2d 275, 279, 982, 496, Porterfield, 746 S.W.2d 441, 450-451 (Tenn.), 486 1017, 1756, 100 218 Even agree assertion inform, control govern, analysis claim, follow seeks. 414-415, 1217-1218. 16 compels case. disagree. resolution Texas scheme giving certain types 2945. To extent Penry's system mental retardation abuse childhood, surprising. command allow decision; barred so acting. Here, contrast, altogether weighing, put them; rather, unconstitutionally considered. above, former Eddings; latter not. 17 moreover, ask much Jurek Texas, 428 262, 96 2950, 49 929 (1976). long permit defendant. 318, 2946. Having construed Jurek, "those assurances fulfilled case," 2947 original), rule: 18 "In view, 'impos[e] obligation' Texas. Rather, simply fulfill assurance based: namely, special issues broadly enough might present sentence." (citations 19 see 318-319, 2947, understood terms ruling application creating different Jurek; indicated reaffirmed 317-319, 2946-2947, confirmed necessity claim. 20 reject runs misapprehends distinction guiding consideration. constitutionally permissible, Gregg Georgia, 153, 189-195, 2909, 2932-2935, 859 (1976) (opinion Stewart, Powell, JJ.), insist assessment appropriateness [be] inquiry culpability response evidence." 545, 841 (O'CONNOR, concurring). Whether juror feels depend juror's own actual crime difficult reconcile fate vagaries jurors' sensitivities longstanding recognition above reliable, accurate, nonarbitrary. Gregg, 2932-2935; Proffitt Florida, 242, 252-253, 2960, 2966-2967, 913 JJ.); 271-272, 2956 (same); Woodson North 280, 303-305, 2978, 2990-2991, 944 opinion); Roberts Louisiana, 325, 333-335, 3001, 3006-3007, 974 opinion). "reasoned response," one. cut off full fair evidence; grant choice make according caprice. 541-543, 839-840. 21 Given discussion, obvious "swayed 'mere conjecture, public feeling' 840. reasonable ignore mere "as admonition rooted evidence," "prohibi[t] juries basing trial." 542-543, Although use attempts transform relies negative inference: permissible prevent follows For discussed 488-491, inference same doubts shared passed constitutionality Brown. 490-491. fact remains, accept arguments, itself nearly four years final. establish contend albeit perhaps Our discussion makes evident 23 necessitate general review. permits retroactive places beyond power proscribe, 311, 1075, addresses "substantive categorical guarante[e] accorded Constitution," "prohibiting category defendants status offense." 330, 2953. invoke exception. 415, 1218; cf. 329-330, 24 implicating fundamental proceeding. 1076 416, 1218. inapplicable contours discern, usually cited Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963), right represented trials serious offenses, illustrate coming See, e.g., 311-312, 1075-1076 653-654, n. 4, 1347-1348, Whatever think respondent's thought 25 judgment 26 ordered. 27 whom MARSHALL joins, STEVENS join except IV, dissenting. 28 attendant. brought U.S.C. 2254 (1982 ed.) challenging alleged, "any prejudice sentence," 13, deprived him determination Circuit, banc, agreed vacated Today, holds retroactively review.1 displays undue eagerness standard retroactivity 347, expense thoughtful legal analysis. I countenance carelessness life stake. dissent. 29 dramatically altered doctrine confinement through remedy obtain procedure. 310, 1075 320, 1080. (STEVENS, joined BLACKMUN, part 1217, defines "susceptible debate minds" prevailing petitioner's argued my dissent novel "reasonableness" convictions incompatible 424-430, 1222-1226. 30 instant leave drastically scope virtually all-encompassing definition rule." case, concludes determines few lower "unreasonable" doing so. Ante, ("We unreasonable").2 majority's conclusion, misreading Most raised mischaracterizes demanding "jurors ante, 489, 488-494. Court: 32 "Mr. asserts sympathetic jury. What assert Woodson, progeny entirely familiar upheld consistently background, addition Tr. Oral Arg. 19-20. 33 concedes State's impose reflect response" culpability. Brief 9. More specifically, claims evoked reacted believed all—not "moral" weight.3 ("[A]n charge court, exploited prosecutor's remarks, erected barrier proof about [respondent's] Since compromised chance balance, too unreliable stand"). Respondent's therefore, alleges violation prohibited deciding penalty. 34 F.2d, 1556. follows: 35 'Mercy,' 'humane' treatment, 'compassion,' unique 'humanity' considerations inevitably sufficiently intertwined parsed significant risk confusion mind 36 Without placing technical emphasis definitions, seems perceived essential important ingredient of, synonym for, 'mercy,' 'compassion' 'individualized' 'character.' Ibid. added). 37 "undermined fully careful distinguish distorted version revives today: 38 "That misconstrues issue. unbridled factor. absolute anti-sympathy presents impermissible danger interfering does. Supreme 'unacceptable commands Amendments.' 1557 2965) B 39 "prevailing law" 1983 falls nonretroactivity presumption. 1075. By unequivocally "not 2964-2965; 113-114, 876-877. ("Just evidence"); 115, 10, 877, (when allows "Lockett listen"). Despite decided, today states although "inform, govern" "compel 491. "what decision" "how original); ("There decision"). 40 not, raise explained evidence's bearing all. Thus, clearly reading real violated. Resolution involves otherwise sufficiency instructions, law. 397, 1823, (1987). "prevent[ed] independent aspects [his] proferred mitigation," 2965, disingenuous. 41 last Term raising limiting explained: 42 "[I]t Amendments, mitigate against penalty." 43 able some retardation, "ha[d] relevance issues, unable express 'reasoned response' determining appropriate punishment." supra 322, 2948.4 sustaining challenge, expressly "consideration" channel "effect" gives stated 'the weigh meaningless consideration' 321, 2948 Franklin 487 164, 185, 2320, 2333, 101 155 (1988) concurring)).5 327, 2951 (" 'In contrast carefully sentencer's discretion cause decline sentence' ") McCleskey Kemp, 304, 1773, 262 (1987)). 44 struggles mightily "consider," "weigh," "give to" relating "manner [the] considered." 491 considers approach, discount certain, describe "manner" despite statute's preclusive effect. Cf. McKoy 433, 465-466, 1227, 1245, 369 (SCALIA, dissenting) (requirement unanimously exists restriction so—viz., unanimously") (citing 490, 1261). 45 language strangely reminiscent trumpeted SCALIA writing Members "it clearer verdict, relevance—the consideration—could channeled law." 355, 2966 part). correctly position failure considerable ambiguity hereafter C 46 Because presses constitute rule," proceed fits nonretroactivity.6 amount "bedrock procedural" "without likelihood accurate seriously diminished" retroactively. 1077. adopts crabbed construction 'watershed procedure' proceeding." 1075); Beyond generalities, offers guidance concession "precise discern." 47 refuses error most disturbing remarkably insensitive premise jurisprudence built. "recognized qualitative punishments correspondingly greater degree scrutiny determination." Ramos, 463 992, 998-999, 3446, 3452, 77 1171 irrevocable nature sufficient Harlan's altogether,7 least inform cases.8 insistence enhance factfinding process fit justify context sentencing. represents culpability, finding. 1081 judgment) ("[A] touchstone innocence provide little cases, hearings"). Smith Murray, 477 527, 537, 2661, 2667, 91 434 (1986). tailored 48 foremost concern imposed capricious manner. 2932, (joint JJ.). comply command, eligible individualized. 541, 839. hearing. 2991, ("[T]he respect humanity individual offender indispensable inflicting death") (citation nonavailability corrective modifying mechanisms executed underscores 2965 Blystone Pennsylvania, 299, 1078, 1083, 255 (1990) ("The satisfied evidence"). Rules guarantee acts information formulating conduct. integral functioning hearing, fear principled explaining why reflects growing displeasure litigation II seek O'CONNOR recognized, "one difficulty remove emotion [antisympathy] misled believing ignored." 545-546, 841-842 (concurring 555, 846 (BRENNAN, dissenting)). That exactly happened case: 50 When reviewing validity "[t]he [this Court] declares be, meaning." Francis Franklin, 471 315-316, 105 1965, 1972, 85 344 (1985) Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 516-517, 2450, 2455, 61 (1979)). Until Term, disagreement standard. reformulates "whether challenged instruction" Boyde California, 370, 380, 1190, 1198, 316 (1990).9 interfered 51 "To instruction, 'must focus initially specific challenged.' fails muster, then whole entire correct interpretation 839 Francis, 1971-1972).10 distinguishable supra. feeling" instead rely sympathy' directive sort totally divorced adduced phase." sympathy—rather "mere sympathy"—it forbidden take account response. 52 bolsters conclusion. father. bore initial reaction hardship. followed father's completely eliminate feelings listed judge, irrelevant decision.11 550, 844 ("It gone far presentation, contexts, look portion appropriately considered"). 53 maintained presentation constituted illegitimate ploy it.12 minimum supported prosecutor argued: 54 "[Defense counsel's] arguments really pitch sympathy—sympathy, sentiment prejudice; me voir dire wouldn't that. 55 "Well it's just cold turkey. didn't. deserves doesn't, know. out it." 75. 56 sparse theme deliberations purely mechanical,13 valid reason Nothing ensured understood. list free deemed mitigating,14 cure infirmity theanti instruction. informed broad never concept mitigation "sympathy" best, then, sent contradictory messages. "Language merely contradicts explain infirm suffice absolve infirmity. way knowing irreconcilable verdict." 1975. "Unless substantial possibility rested 'improper' ground, remand resentencing." Mills Maryland, 367, 377, 1860, 1867, 384 58 suggests invalidation ensures "a response,' one." 493 omitted; recent concurring); 319, 2947; 184, 2332, 2333 concurring), "emotional" Amendment's determination. (1976), "[a] accords significance facets excludes fixing ultimate compassionate stemming diverse frailties humankind." 2991 description "mitigating evidence" "compassionate factors" necessarily includes fairly regarded "compassion." Webster's International Dictionary 544 (2d ed. 1957); Funk & Wagnalls Standard 541 (1952). 59 emotion, plays role forming actions. academic invalid acceptable response." incantation talismanic phrase hide penalty—the severe sanction available society—should represent light views propriety ones actually transmitted III 60 well duty today, remanded resentencing 119, 879 concurring) ("Woodson legitimate [sentencer]"). 328, 2952; Mills, 1867; Hitchcock, 399, 1824; 8, 1673, (1986); 608, 2966. adhere inexcusable. Distorting behind smokescreen believe vacate cruel unusual punishment. 227, 859. briefed parties amicus ("Well haven't prepared argue point probably press it"). addressing instance. 300, 1069 (amicus issue). wiser course Circuit's reconsideration 347. Zant Moore, 836, 1518, 922 (1989) (remanding oral Teague); (appellate instance waived retroactivity). litigated basic fairness. 422, 1221, looks discern 412-415, 1216-1218 (Arizona Roberson, 675, 2093, 704 (1988), "dictated" Edwards Arizona, 451 477, 1880, 68 378 split). recitation resolve question, ultimately responsibility clarify holdings. addition, omits Lanphear, Cal.3d 163, 165-166, 203 Cal.Rptr. 122, 123-124, 680 1081, 1082-1083 (1984); Legare Ga. 875, 877-878, 302 351, 353-354 cite rejecting support "reasonable." 420-421, 1220-1221 explained, "evidence belief, society, commit attributable disadvantaged problems, culpable excuse." 841, 2949, ("Because mentally retarded normal adult impulses evaluate consequences conduct, childhood abuse, [a] 'culpable excuse' "). Yet actions evoke 548, 843 ("In forbidding account, face precludes precisely designed elicit, effectively negating intended O'CONNOR's concurrence implicitly possibility. ("[O]ne ignored"). "claim retardation," added), incorrect. 2947. effort solely well, unavailing. limit seeks—that presented, must, request, possible imposed—is Lockett. based, Texas") 1070). 193, 2337 meaningful hear like introduce probative enumerated [v. ], whatever [one issues]"). primary punish. 3, (explaining main habeas—promoting rehabilitation—is "wholly inapplicable" cases) Mackey 401 667, 690-691, 1160, 1178-1179, 404 (1971)). refined "Although read [the first] focusing protection actor's [i]n individuals punish analogous all." errors implied procedure already established. apparently rests cursory treatment assumption. Regardless pertaining guilt understanding unsupportable dealing context. finality protections cases." Ake 470 68, 87, 1087, 1098, 84 (Burger, ably demonstrates Boyde, engages sleight hand reformulation 387, 1201 (MARSHALL, end, unclear "reasonable likelihood" differs 392, 1204 conceive 'reasonable likelihood' so"). stricter "irreconcilable bedrock due principles." 322-323, 1975-1976, 8. especially inappropriate stage [concerning instruction] resolved favor accused." Andres 333 740, 752, 880, 886, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948). 392-394, "This 'requires attention words spoken ., rights depends instruction.' 1971 514, 2454, are: "1. activity; "2. committed while extreme disturbance; "3. participant homicidal consented act; "4. justification extenuation conduct; "5. accomplice another person participation act relatively minor; "6. acted duress domination person; "7. capacity appreciate criminality (wrongfulness) conform impaired disease intoxication; "8. age crime." 11-12. comments force often useful aid 385, 1200 ("[A]rguments counsel, judged made"); 553, 845 true defense gave argument. 694-733. thing heard began deliberations. stressed beginning dire, jury: "Of enter And frankly that's cold-blooded [Y]ou want can't sit jury." 8-9. rest calculated assure conscience bother justice "cold-blooded." "[Y]ou're yourself putting become says anyone this, suffer So you're says, verdict—once back in, takes over. things, conscience. You're happens, whoever horrible, atrocious "Now man's God's same. murderer shall don't let conscience, know." 39-40 told: facts herein, find exist determine." 10-11.

Category: 0