Document: 543 U.S. 37 SMITHv.TEXAS. No. 04-5323. Supreme Court of United States. Decided November 15, 2004. The supplemental nullification instruction given at the punishment phase petitioner's capital murder trial allowed Texas jury to give effect his mitigation evidence only by negating what would otherwise be affirmative responses two special issues relating deliberateness and future dangerousness. Pursuant this instruction, sentenced petitioner death. Criminal Appeals denied him postconviction relief, reasoning that either was irrelevant because did not proffer "constitutionally significant" evidence, or distinguishable from in Penry v. Johnson, 532 U. S. 782, 797 (Penry II), which found constitutionally inadequate it allow a "full consideration full mitigating circumstances" choosing an appropriate sentence. Held: Petitioner's relevant under Tennard Dretke, 542 274, Lynaugh, 492 302 I); therefore, II. In rejecting precise threshold test used here, held must effective vehicle with weigh so long as defendant has met "low for relevance." S., 285. Because proffered Court's precedents, Eighth Amendment required court empower capable giving evidence. II, courts' adequate expressing "reasoned moral response" all defendant's culpability. 796. Any distinctions between one here are insignificant. Certiorari granted; 132 W. 3d 407, reversed remanded. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT CRIMINAL APPEALS TEXAS. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner LaRoyce Lathair Smith convicted death Dallas County, Texas. Before reached its sentence, judge issued "nullification instruction." Ex parte Smith, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). That directed but do 782 (2001) we similar instruction" "`full circumstances'" Id., (quoting Johnson Texas, 509 350, 381 (1993) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting)). Despite our holding rejected request relief. reasoned sufficiently II survive constitutional scrutiny. 3d, 413, n. 21. We grant petition certiorari motion leave proceed forma pauperis, reverse. 2 * 1991, brutally murdering former co-workers Taco Bell County. victim her were closing down restaurant when several friends asked let use telephone. employees recognized in. then told he wanted rob restaurant. When they leave, killed co-worker pistol-whipping shooting back. also threatened, harm, other before exiting friends. guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 3 At phase, instructed on issues: first, whether killing deliberate; second, posed continuing danger others.1 Approximately years prior trial, had presenting these issues, without additional instructions regarding jury's duty consider violated Amendment. 302, 328 (1989) I). Shortly after Legislature amended sentencing scheme require juries take "into including circumstances offense, character background, personal culpability defendant" deciding there sufficient warrant sentence life imprisonment rather than supra, 803 Tex. Code Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071(2)(e)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2001)). Petitioner, however, receive benefit new statutory trial. Instead, just pursuant provided judge.2 read: "`You you shall any which, your opinion, is mitigating. Mitigating reduces Defendant's blameworthiness, may include, limited to, aspect character, record, offense have guilty. Our law does specify considered Neither provide formula determining how much weight, if any, circumstance deserves. You hear judgment, no relationship Special Issues, find such instructions, following Court. You, each you, sole judges circumstances, those 4 "`In answering Issues submitted herein, believe State proved doubt answers "Yes," Defendant should death, answer least "No" order belief penalty imposed due presented you. regard, further prove despite admitted 5 deliberate body about reach unanimous verdict their existence weight. vote decide yourself exist and, so, weight deserve.'" 409. 6 Employing framework modified variety (1) been diagnosed potentially organic learning disabilities speech handicaps early age; (2) verbal IQ score 75 78 result, education classes throughout most time school; (3) low disabilities, behavior school often exemplary; (4) father drug addict who involved gang violence criminal activities, regularly stole money family members support addiction; (5) 19 committed crime. 7 response, prosecution demonstrating acted deliberately cruelly. emphasized knew victim, yet stabbed repeatedly numerous places body. With respect dangerousness, stressed previously misdemeanor assault suggesting laws. 8 During arguments reminded truthfully 9 "Now, talked voir dire, — spent lot talking determine could follow law. us very important things First all, case penalty. Secondly, said, `Mr. Nancarrow, Ms. McDaniel, me yes, I can them yes.' If wavered, hesitated minute that, guarantee weren't going jury. believed then, now." Pet. Cert. 6. 10 form tracked final reminders gave made mention nullification. Nor say anything act probability commit acts constitute threat society. "Yes" only. answered both questions 11 On direct appeal, argued rendered unconstitutional affirmed through May 1995. 514 1112. 12 filed original writ habeas corpus 1998. suit dismissed untimely, code way file timely writ. claiming violation Appeals, ran afoul application merits. 407 (2004).3 13 opinion decision 274 (2004). Tennard, Fifth Circuit's refusal certificate appealability legislative revisions took place aftermath I. relying upon I, Texas' dangerousness court's failure issue unconstitutional. state Circuit lack irrelevant. courts determined failed satisfy standard "`constitutionally relevant' is, `uniquely severe permanent handicap burdened fault own,' `the attributable condition.'" 281 (some internal quotation marks omitted). 14 rejection central reverse Tennard. "[t]he foundation decisions nor progeny screened `constitutional relevance' considering comported Amendment." 284. Rather, relevance," satisfied "`"evidence tends logically disprove some fact fact-finder reasonably deem value."'" 284-285 McKoy North Carolina, 494 433, 440 (1990)). 15 relied precisely same "screening test" 413 (holding requires passes "whether `due uniquely own'" Robertson Cockrell, 325 F. 243, 251 (CA5 2003) (en banc))). test, concluded placement special-education demonstrate suffered "severe disability." 414. But, explained "[e]vidence significantly impaired intellectual functioning obviously `might serve basis less death.'" 288 omitted) Skipper South 476 1, (1986)). There question might well scores history participation reason impose more lenient Indeed, 79, slightly higher petitioner's, constitutes See Wiggins 539 510, 535 (2003); cf. 288. 16 offered "no link nexus troubled childhood mental abilities murder." "nexus" requirement 287 (noting none opinions "suggested mentally retarded individual establish capacity crime prohibition executing triggered" opportunity even cannot "a crime"). 17 purposes plain predating See, e. g., 319-322; Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 822 (1991); Boyde California, 370, 377-378 (1990); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 114 (1982). court, erroneously never countenanced now unequivocally rejected. therefore hold "assessed [petitioner's legal] claim improper legal standard." 287. relevant, Whether charge turn. III 18 adequately significant "told `shall' unrelated [and] evidence." 416. clear "believed warranted circumstances." Ibid. "the key able `consider [a mitigation] imposing sentence.'" 319); see dissenting) ("`[A] sentencer [must] (emphasis Johnson))). length why employed Although received, 20 identified broad intractable problem ignored inherent nullify contained within form. 21 "We generally presume jurors instructions. Here, ethically impossible juror sets Penry's fit scope manner prescribed necessarily meant ignoring command instruction. And mode falsely violate oath render `"true verdict."' "The mechanism created thus inserted `an element capriciousness' into decision, `making jurors' power avoid dependent willingness' elevate over least, `a likelihood . applied challenged prevent[ed] consideration' retardation abuse. make response 799-800 (citations 22 It certainly true mandatory distinct Penry's. "shall" resolved ambiguity "`shackled confined'" impermissibly narrow issues. 798. being clearer resolve ethical described 46 page.4 To contrary, language possibly intensified dilemma faced jurors. Just whatsoever burden proof tied findings little, anything, presented.5 Even assume easily effectively comprehended orally delivered directing disregard, certain written later occasion, change "jury essentially return false sentence." 801. 23 principled distinction, purposes, judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 24 ordered. Notes: text follows: "(1) Was conduct caused deceased deliberately, expectation another result? Is society?" inPenry stated: supported phases defendant. A record inappropriate case. case, deserve, assessing issue. determine, reflected negative finding consideration, defendant, issues.'" U.S., 789-790 added). Four procedurally defaulted. 417 (Hervey, concurring);id., 428 (Holcomb, concurring). majority declined adopt claims concurring below straightforwardly problem. 427 2004) concurring) (concluding "`nullification' would, matter federal law, suffer defect applicant sentencer'" conceding "as law"); id., ("The Smith's defects Therefore, unconstitutionally precluded evidence"). similarity andPenry prosecutor admonished "`follow oath, law'" deliberations fill out 802. statement sent "mixed signals" "only dishonestly similarly every promised "follow law" proof. Thus, more, seems inclusion language, confusing implement practice assumed. 25 JUSTICE SCALIA, whom THOMAS joins, dissenting. 26 affirm Appeals. Walton Arizona, 497 639, 673 (1990) (SCALIA, part judgment).

Category: 0