Document: 509 U.S. 350 113 S.Ct. 2658 125 L.Ed.2d 290 Dorsie Lee JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner,v.TEXAS. No. 92-5653. Argued April 26, 1993. Decided June 24, Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, Syllabus * A jury found petitioner Johnson guilty of capital murder for a crime he committed when was 19 years old. In conformity with the Texas sentencing statute then in effect, trial court instructed during trial's penalty phase to answer two special issues: (1) whether Johnson's conduct deliberately and reasonable expectation that death would result, (2) there probability commit criminal acts violence constitute continuing threat society. The also instructed, inter alia, determining each these issues, it could take into consideration all evidence submitted it, aggravating or mitigating, either trial. unanimous answered yes both sentenced death, as required by law. Shortly after State Court Criminal Appeals affirmed conviction sentence, this issued Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 302, 109 2934, 106 256. denying motion rehearing, state appellate rejected his contentions issues did not allow give adequate mitigating effect youth separate instruction on question. Held: procedures applied case were consistent Eighth Fourteenth Amendments under Court's precedents. Pp. ____. (a) review relevant decisions demonstrates constitutional requirements regarding circumstances sentencers cases. Although sentencer cannot be precluded from considering, factor, any aspect defendant's character record particular offense defendant proffers basis sentence less than see, e.g., Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 604, 98 2954, 2964, 57 973 (plurality opinion); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 1, States are free structure shape an effort achieve more rational equitable administration penalty, Boyde California, 494 370, 377, 110 1190, 1196, 108 316. (b) law which has been principal concern series opinions Court. Although, Jurek Texas, 428 262, 276, 277, 96 2950, 2958, 49 929, six Justices agreed that, general matter, system satisfied foregoing requirements, later held, supra, sufficient mental retardation childhood abuse light circumstances, id., at 320-323, S.Ct., 2947-2949, erred instructing consider declining impose 329, 2952. However, concluded creating "new rule," ----, characterized its holding straightforward application Jurek, Lockett, Eddings, making clear cases can stand together Penry, see U.S., 314-318, 2944-2946. confirmed limited view scope Graham Collins, 506 892, 122 260, held youth, family background, positive traits placed beyond jury's effective reach scheme, ----. (c) allowed youth. There is no likelihood, Boyde, 380, 1197, have itself foreclosed considering aspects since received second issue told evidence. That ample room future dangerousness assessment juror account factor what distinguishes 323, 2949. There, expert medical testimony prevented him learning experience, only logically considered within inquiry factor. contrast, youth's ill effects subject change ages and, readily comprehended issue. Because such comprehensive question historical fact, rejects related arguments issue's forward-looking perspective narrowness from, respectively, taking how bore upon personal culpability "reasoned moral response" For find defect overrule requiring further whenever introduced had some arguable relevance issues; alter rule require able every conceivable manner might relevant; remove States' power under, Boyde. 773 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), affirmed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, SCALIA, THOMAS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinions. O'CONNOR, dissenting opinion, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, SOUTER, Michael E. Tigar, Austin, TX, petitioner. Dana Parker, respondent. Justice KENNEDY 1 time Term, we challenge former system. Like condemned prisoner 260 (1993), here claims until 1991 federal habeas corpus proceeding where confront Teague Lane, 489 288, 1060, 103 334 (1989), barring new rules corpus. part because relief sought meaning Teague, denied relief. instant comes us direct petitioner's so without constraints though course customary respect doctrine stare decisis. Based our precedents, including much reasoning Graham, Amendments. 2 Petitioner, age, companion, Amanda Miles, decided rob Allsup's convenience store Snyder, March 23, 1986. After agreeing should witnesses crime, pair went survey layout particular, determine number employees working evening. They employee present predawn hours clerk, Jack Huddleston. Petitioner Miles left make their final plans. 3 returned short later. handgun pocket, reentered Miles. waiting other customers leave, asked Huddleston orange juice one gallon plastic jugs none shelves. Saying check, store's cooler. followed there, being robbed, ordered lie floor. complied order hands behind head, shot back neck, killing him. When emerged cooler, emptied cash registers about $160. grabbed carton cigarettes fled. 4 1986, few weeks arrested subsequent robbery attempted clerk Colorado City, Texas. He confessed tried convicted murder. homicide qualified intentionally knowingly caused Huddleston's carried out committing robbery. Tex.Penal Code Ann. §§ 19.02(a)(1), 19.03(a)(2) (Vernon 1989). 5 determined murder, punishment proceedings conducted determined. capital-sentencing Tex. Crim. Proc. Art. 37.071(b) 1981),1 6 "[ ] Was Defendant, Johnson, deceased, deceased another result? 7 . 8 Is society?"2 App. 148-149. 9 made consequences answers 10 "You if returns affirmative 'yes' [sic Issues submitted, shall Defendant death. If negative 'no' Issue life prison." Id., 146. 11 discuss possibility parole. 147. follows concerning evidence: 12 "In Issues, you may case, nature, is, first called guilt innocence evidence, any, wherein Special Issues." Ibid. 13 counsel various objections charge, request expansive given circumstance, 14 anticipation court's instructions, presented numerous who testified violent tendencies. most serious City. Witnesses face, resulting victim's permanent disfigurement brain damage. Other fired shots man outside restaurant Snyder days Huddleston, sheriff's deputy worked jail threatened "get" got jail. 15 Petitioner's strangers. longtime friend petitioner, Beverly early 1986 hit her, thrown large rock her pointed gun several occasions. girlfriend, Paula Williams, reported become angry afternoon axe. incidents, gravity, before One classmates cut piece glass while they seventh grade. Another classmate just year later, additional stabbed third pencil. 16 established crimes experience justice 1985 burglary Waco, twice violated terms probation smoking marijuana. still 17 defense father, Sr., witness. elder attributed son's activities drug use son age "a real mature person," father answered: 18 "No, no. Age nineteen? No, sir. That, also, I foolish age. That's tend want macho, built-up, trying step manhood. You're mature-lized it." 27. At close testimony, summarized role thought played crime: 20 "[A]ll say think kid eighteen nineteen old undeveloped mind, sense assembling not—I don't right wrong, but evaluation much, know, be—well, don't—he evaluate worth —what's what's isn't like thirty thirty-five would. lot things younger person wouldn't." 47. 21 regular churchgoer problems attributable mother following stroke 1984 sister 1985. Finally, senior remorse over 22 voir dire proceedings, 90 prospective jurors questioned days, venirepersons believed people capable ever done youths do now. See, Tr. Voir Dire 5575 (132d Jud.Dist.Ct., Scurry County, Tex.), pp. 1526-1529 (Juror Swigert); 1691-1692 Freeman); p. 2366 Witte); 2630-2632 Raborn).3 theme closing argument: 23 "The question—the question, think, believe change. You will remember thing me agreed—every agree change, means takes [regarding dangerousness] realm possibility, longer probable things, possible see. "If couldn't know probably. But knows your heart mind therefore, no." 81. 24 Counsel urged father. 73-74. 25 burden proving doubt. 145. yes, Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., 37.071(e) 1981). 26 On appeal, rejecting seven allegations error, involved punishment-phase instructions. (1989). Five ruling, 256 rehearing arguing, among points, Citing claimed requested argued point prior stage procedural bar interposed. Instead, argument merits it. noting already indicated Lackey State, 819 111, 134 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), issue, reasoned "[i]f [petitioner's] actions result same naturally [petitioner] cease behave violently grew older." 180. "the express response art. 37.071 instructions them court." 180-181. 27 petition certiorari, granted. 1148, 499 (1993). II A. 28 This latest explained imposed earliest decisional line Furman Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 (1972). Furman, juries almost complete discretion "no meaningful distinguishing [death was] many [was] not." 313, 2763 (WHITE, concurring). single rationale, majority "cruel unusual" Amendment. guiding principle channel avoid "wanto[n]" "freakis[h]" manner. 310, (Stewart, 29 Four Terms five cases, day, constitutionality systems. Gregg 153, 2909, 859 (1976); Proffitt Florida, 242, 2960, 913 929 Woodson North Carolina, 280, 2978, 944 Roberts Louisiana, 325, 3001, 974 (1976). wake least 35 abandoned schemes vested favor systems (i) "specif[ied] factors weighed deciding sentence," (ii) "ma[de] mandatory certain crimes." Gregg, 179-180, 2928 (opinion Stewart, Powell, JJ.). controlling joint three reaffirmed "discretion must suitably directed minimize risk wholly arbitrary capricious action." 189, 2932; accord, Proffitt, 258, 2969 30 principle, statutes mandating imposition Constitution. STEVENS tension first, assessing scheme. According Justices, "consideration individual offender [is] constitutionally indispensable process inflicting death." Woodson, 304, 2991 JJ.); 189-190, n. 38, 2990, 38 273-274, 2957 Roberts, 333, 3006 struck down specified inconsistent See 305, 2991; 335-336, 3007. 31 Two plurality (1978), refined sentencer. Unlike excluded, Ohio permitted range sentencer.4 nonetheless unconstitutional, 2965. adopted (1982); Hitchcock Dugger, 481 393, 398-399, 107 1821, 1824, 95 347 (1987); Skipper South 476 4, 1669, 1670, (1986), altered rule's central requirement. "Lockett progeny proposition off absolute presentation judicial instruction, limiting inquiries severely never decision all." McKoy 433, 456, 1227, 1240, 369 (1990) (KENNEDY, judgment); 901-902; Saffle Parks, 484, 490-491, 1257, 1261, 415 (1990). 32 prevent placing "beyond sentencer," 902, those others sentencer's Indeed, "there requirement unfettered jury, 'in penalty,' " 316 (quoting Franklin 487 164, 181, 2320, 2331, 101 155 (1988) opinion)); Saffle, 490, 1261. B four previous supra; (1989); supra. As mentioned, included group addressing post-Furman 1976. 34 noted deficiency used narrow offenders punishment, having different classifications purpose. 270-271, 2956. Turning mitigation side system, said: "[T]he turns enumerated [special issues] particularized factors." 272, exam ined detail asks society." define terms, interpret bring attention: 'In likelihood society, significant record. It severity conduct. look commission acting duress domination another. extreme form emotional pressure, something less, perhaps, insanity, emotions average man, however inflamed, withstand.' [Jurek State,] 522 [934], 939-940 [ (Tex.Crim.App.1975) ]." 272-273, 2957. 36 "By authorizing hearing whatever relating adduced, ensured guidance enable perform function." 2958. Three requirements. 2958 judgment). 37 We next involving recognized upheld matter weight good prison disciplinary independent issues. 171-172, 2326. claim, provided vehicle character. 178, 2329. entitled cast "independent" vote against even 180, 2330. guided providing discretion. 182, 2331. O'CONNOR expressed reservations scheme she inhibited case. 183-186, 2332-2334 (O'CONNOR, pivotal view, set aside abuse. too appropriate Penry's circumstances. "[t]he offered imposing sentence." 320, 2947. Absent definition term "deliberately," "be sure answering issue," 2949, turned dangerousness. suggested rendered unable learn mistakes. consequence, "only suggests dangerousness." "consider abused background penalty." explicit dissent's seeking rule, contravention earlier rulings Penry. 39 Collins. confronted claim traits. contention dictated ruling favor, stated "effec[t] sea statute," 901 contrary conclusion 901. accept rested, compelled Graham: 40 lay fact Skipper, Hitchcock, types reliable giving however, Graham's reach." 902. 41 addition, differed "Graham's evidence—unlike —had likely benefit decision, jurists "would [not] deemed themselves claim." 903. Thus, impermissible Teague. III 42 Today taken Graham. contends review, presents seeks. force decisis, though, rests considerations parallel respects applicable here. interests victims whose rights vindicate, ought relies interpretation Amendment approved absent demonstration misinterpretation command. Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 265-266, 617, 624, 88 598 (1986); Arizona Rumsey, 467 203, 212, 104 2305, 2310, 81 164 (1984). 43 dispute circumstance meet Eddings. Sumner Shuman, 483 66, 81-82, 2716, 2725, 97 56 115, 877; 608, 2966 opinion). Our recognize "youth chronological fact. condition susceptible influence psychological damage." 877. lack maturity underdeveloped responsibility often adults understandable young. These qualities impetuous ill-considered decisions. deliberations sentence. 44 An proper holdings itself. standard assess satisfy forth reviewing "whether challenged way prevents evidence." 1198. does prove requires mere bar. evaluating engage technical parsing language instead approach would—with "commonsense understanding place trial." 381, 45 decide Pursuant 149. phases Even cold record, unmoved urging due strains credulity suppose viewed derives signature transient; individuals mature, impetuousness recklessness dominate subside. difficulties determination. aggravating, opposed mean violated. 901-902. long satisfied. Ibid., 46 mentally retarded experience. 308-309, 2941. illness fell prosecution crimes, mistakes, logical remains fair reading. falls ambit. retardation, 47 contest argues committed. "[a] prediction behavior committed." Brief 38. Contrary suggestion, culpability. determination asking extent influenced 5, 1671 ("Consideration past indicative inevitable undesirable element sentencing"). transient culpable true structured doing, "allow[s] [this] decision." 491, 1262. vehicles 48 argument, quoting portion 328, 2951, factual We, previously interpreted "exercise judgment discretion." Adams 448 46, 100 2521, 2527, 65 581 (1980). accords understanding" implement charge phases. crucial employed "continuing society"—affords reaching decision. forget deliberating aware answers, weigh formulates similar 'pure balancing' States." Franklin, 12, 2332, Blystone Pennsylvania, 299, 1078, 255 (1990), Members dissent example exercise judgment. stated: "[The facts supporting legislatively defined circumstance. focusing deliberateness dangerousness, questions compel directs sufficiently egregious warrant 322, 1091 (Brennan, dissenting). 50 Appeals' supports sentences consistently looked nonexclusive list eight factors, includes support Ellason 815 656, 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Brasfield 600 288 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). 51 who, solely sympathy mercy, opted construed dispense mercy sympathetic defendant. said "[i]t very difficult reconcile allowing fate turn vagaries jurors' sensitivities longstanding recognition above all, reliable, accurate, nonarbitrary." 493, 1262; California Brown, 479 538, 542-543, 837, 840, 93 934 (1987) (permitting base sympathy). 52 fashion jurisprudence. casualty Jurek. consequence supplemented instruction. 53 "[H]olding offer fourth 'special issue' put jury: ' "Does you, [three] questions, lead imposed?" 902 10, 2330, 10). 54 addition overruling accepting entail alteration Instead relevant. 55 fundamental flaw position failure "[t]here simple difference between govern guide weighing To leaves depart would, course, evidence—a rejecting. 1196; 2331 reconciliation competing principles function jurisprudence seeks competing, valid, reflected "accommodates concerns." regard satisfies precedents force. infirmity 58 ordered. 59 concurring. 60 my Lockett-Eddings "all evidence" quite incompatible channeled. Walton Arizona, 497 639, 3047, 3058, 111 511 (SCALIA, continue unless sort "channeling" engaged merely (as today holds), positively required—a elaboration intricate neither forward nor support. 61 Today's simply clarification (and plainly correct one) opinion), essence today's (to channeled) 350, 2963, (1989) part). Accordingly, join 62 63 "remains law," ante, ____, expressly overruled, adhere wrongly decided. 903, (1993) (THOMAS, substantially narrowed 913-914, 10. distinguishable reconsideration. therefore opinion. 64 whom SOUTER join, dissenting. led Today, upholds full strongest reaches invoking highly selective version decisis misapplying review. Therefore, respectfully dissent. 66 By accounts, model adolescent frequently missed school, attend, disruptive. drinking using drugs 16, habits intensified 19. deaths affected deeply, primarily easily conclude, did, society," 37.071(b)(2) 1981)—was yes. outgrow temper matured, pattern escalating indication dangerous older. associated dissipate sometime future, reasonably understood answer. ---- - 926, (SOUTER, 67 Constitution 37.071, allows youth: relation "culpability 1671, (1986). troubled young grow up adult, happens unrelated crime. conclude acted 37.071(b)(1), 37.071(b)(2), yet adult. (1982), vicissitudes bear directly offender's "[Y]outh history replete laws minors, especially years, generally responsible adults. Particularly formative adolescence, minors perspective, expected adults." 115-116, 877 (footnotes internal quotation marks omitted). 68 924 dissenting) ("Youth mitigate reducing cognitive immaturity inexperience render responsible").* 69 [WESTm,S.Ct. 2674!]]view, (internal 70 'dictated precedent' available collateral 897 301, 1070, opinion)). mandated. need "susceptible debate minds." 914 dissenting), had, today. states review: New retroactively invalidate convictions analysis threshold 300-301, 1070 reject purpose accommodate demands imperatives "principle finality essential operation system," 309, 1074. Desist United States, 394 244, 260-269, 89 1030, 1040-1044, 248 (1969) (Harlan, concerns come play certiorari filing affirming expired. Griffith Kentucky, 314, 321, 6, 708, 712, 649 (1987). Until time, comity standards retroactivity need, indeed, ourselves duty resolve best governing principles," Mackey 401 667, 679, 91 1160, 1173, 404 (1971) judgment), reliance State. 72 doctrine, well purpose, makes majority's emphasis inappropriate new, ask fairly discerned precedents; minds," Butler McKellar, 407, 415, 1212, 1217, And difficult, faced settled facts. 414-415, 1217. 73 squarely addressed combination today, create insurmountable interest suggests. address elevate practice letting "percolate" federalism emerging Constitution, read requires. 74 considerable facial challenges, category defendants 196-197, 2936, (1976) (joint 250-253, 2965-2967, 270-274, 2955-2957, unconstitutional. 303-305, 2990-2991, 333-336, 3006-3007, certainly sentencer, "consistent Constitution." Ante, nullification prevailed Furman. 303, 2990. Furthermore, significance facets excludes fixing ultimate compassionate stemming diverse frailties humankind." 2991. 75 death-eligible preponderance 599, 7, 607, 2962, 2966, (1978) existence 'the nature history, character, offender.' 612, 2968 Rev.Code § 2929.04(B) (1975)). Supreme liberally, nevertheless pass muster. 2966. rarest kind 2964 (footnote specifically factors. Nevertheless, unconstitutional method "affect Accord, Bell 637, 641-642, 2977, 2980, 1010 (petitioner's wide phase, according statute, evidence; reversed unconstitutionally factors). 76 (1982). Oklahoma contained specific restrictions considered, consider, unhappy upbringing disturbance. 109-110, 874. : ways affect explained, accommodated twin objectives jurisprudence: "measured, fairness accused." 875. 77 again plain meant said. reiterated "relate[d] committed," treated serves 'as death,' 2964). "constitutionally permissible penalty" Term McCleskey Kemp, 279, 1756, 1774, 262 (1987): 78 "First, below imposed. context, establish criteria decisionmaker's threshold. Second, limit cause decline penalty. respect, discretion, information defendant." 305-306, 1774 (emphases added). 79 adhered discretion" McCleskey, recently 319-328, 2947-2952, attempts relying opinions, concurrences, dicta, declined upset 80 Despite precedent impermissibly respondent Appeals, clings doggedly relies, nothing actually evaluated enact statutes. times, necessity, challenges facial. example, examined twice: itself, 273, posture statute's application, not, narrowest ground "particularized offender" 274, penalty," 1774. implemented instances Nor "as-applied" implicated (1988). (1980), members "while remaining oaths." 2526. "concluded broadly question—despite narrowness." 82 as-applied statements conditioned plurality's disagreed suggestion "ability authority offense." 183-185, 2332-2333 joined judgment) (emphasis added); 194-200, 2338-2341 (STEVENS, Brennan Marshall, 320-321, 2948 ("[B]oth concurrence [in resting fundamentally assurance permit fully introduced"). 83 surprising. day Georgia Florida. Yet applications Florida approved. Godfrey 446 420, 1759, 398 (1980) (vague overly broad construction unconstitutional); supra (holding restrict statute). minority Franklin. goes far note approval "Jurek 'independent' issues." ____ (citing 2330). reading head. 84 ability concurred given. 185, 2333 resolution open. 85 "future dangerousness" "Eddings enough 319, "full effect" evident remainder discussion. 2948. sufficient, problem suggests, "deliberately." "[p]ersonal culpability," "is capacity act 'deliberately.' "deliberately" "in clearly bears culpability." 86 retardation: diminution 323-324, finding "only" description "two-edged sword" context. inadequate Penry; discussion issue—whether unreasonable provocation—also focused inability lacked death" 324-325, 2950. clear: 355, part) (The holds "that [special] ., ways, permit"). C 87 recent contrary. relied propositions First, accordingly, individualized sentencing. allege interfered instead, essentially nullification. 1196. rejected) "catch-all" "[a]ny extenuates gravity legal excuse crime." 374, 1194 long-time "Eighth petitioner," 377-378, "restrict [the] evidence," 378, 1197. 382-384, 1199-1200. constrict misplaced. based sympathy. 489, 1260. sure, suggesting anything sympathy, dictum precedent. Limiting react unfocused equivalent preventing response," 1263 omitted), "any death," 1260 continually 1976 prohibits latter limitation. fact." respond events adult not. vacate remand resentencing. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 337, 282, 287, L.Ed. 499. Legislature amended 1991. 37.071(2) Supp.1992-1993). "unreasonable provocation, deceased," "if raised 37.071(b)(3) submit colloquy Juror Raborn illustrative discussions jurors: "Q. Okay. Do feel that—let this. is—or forty — "A. that. change? Yes, can. I've known have. indicator road? line. say, change." 2630-2631. Once aggravated judge present: victim induced facilitated offense; unlikely duress, coercion, strong provocation; (3) product psychosis deficiency. 607-608, Of statutes, prohibit execution 18. Ala.Code 13A-5-51(7) Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(G)(5) Ark.Code 5-4-605(4) Cal.Penal 190.3(i) (West 1988); Colo.Rev.Stat. 16-11-802(1)(a), (4)(a) (Supp.1992); Conn.Gen.Stat. 53a-46a(g)(1) (1985); Fla.Stat. 921.141(6)(g), 921.142(7)(f) 720 ILCS 5/9-1(c) (1992); Ind.Code 35-50-2-9(c)(7) Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. 532.025(2)(b)(8) (Baldwin 1989); La.Code 905.5(f) 1984); Md.Ann.Code, 27, 413(g)(5) Miss.Code 99-19-101(6)(g) Mo.Rev.Stat. 565.032.3(7) Mont.Code 46-18-304(7) (1991); Neb.Rev.Stat. 29-2523(2)(d) Nev.Rev.Stat. 200.035(6) N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 630:5(VI)(d) N.J.Stat.Ann. 2C:11-3(c)(5)(c) 1982); N.M.Stat.Ann. 31-20A-6(I) (1990); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(f)(7) (1988); 2929.04(B)(4) (1993); Ore.Rev.Stat. 163.150(1)(c)(A) Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann., Tit. 42, 9711(e)(4) (Purdon S.C.Code 16-3-20(C)(b)(7) Tenn.Code 39-13-204(j)(7) Utah 76-3-207(3)(e) Va.Code 19.2-264.4(B)(v) Wash.Rev.Code 10.95.070(7) (1992). specifying examples. Del.Code Ann., 11, 4209(c) (1987 Supp.1992); Ga.Code 17-10-30(b) Idaho 19-2515(c) Okla.Stat., 21, 701.10(C) S.D. Codified Laws 23A-27A-1 (Supp.1993); current 2(e) Supp.1993).

Category: 0