Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 146.0

524US1

Unit: $U76

[09-06-00 18:29:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 88 (1998)

101

Stevens, J., dissenting

interpretation on this ground, and the clearest statement in
his briefs on why a manslaughter instruction should have
been given referred to manslaughter generally, for the fol-
lowing reason: “As the Court ruled in State v. Ellis, 208 Neb.
379, 303 N. W. 2d 741 (1981), such an instruction is necessary
‘where there is no eye witness to the act, and the evidence
is largely circumstantial.’ ” Reply Brief for Appellant in
No. 81–706 (Neb. Sup. Ct.), p. 11. We will not second-guess
the Nebraska Supreme Court’s 100-year-old interpretation
of state law when respondent failed to present his challenge
to that court in the ﬁrst instance.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals’ judgment
granting respondent a conditional writ of habeas corpus is
reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens, dissenting.
As a matter of Nebraska law, second-degree murder is
not ordinarily a lesser included offense of felony murder.1
Based in part on this fact, the Court holds that it was not
necessary for the trial judge to grant respondent’s request
for an instruction authorizing the jury to ﬁnd respondent
guilty of that offense. The Court’s logic would be unassail-
able if the State had not sought the death penalty.

The reason that Nebraska generally does not consider
second-degree murder a lesser included offense of felony
murder is that it requires evidence of an intent to cause the
death of the victim, whereas felony murder does not. But
in this case the State sought to impose the death penalty on
respondent for the offense of felony murder. As a matter of
federal constitutional law, under Enmund v. Florida, 458
U. S. 782 (1982), it could not do so without proving that re-

1 See, e. g., State v. Price, 252 Neb. 365, 373, 562 N. W. 2d 340, 346 (1997);
State v. Masters, 246 Neb. 1018, 1025, 524 N. W. 2d 342, 348 (1994); State
v. Ruyle, 234 Neb. 760, 773, 452 N. W. 2d 734, 742–743 (1990); State v.
McDonald, 195 Neb. 625, 636–637, 240 N. W. 2d 8, 15 (1976).