Opinion ID: 1912613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Nebraska Constitution Governs the Issue

Text: It is correct that we have held that electrocution does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the U.S. or Nebraska Constitution. [92] But we have not previously had the opportunity to review a factual record showing electrocution's physiological effects on a prisoner, nor have we relied on any case in which such evidence was reviewed. Instead, we have relied on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. As explained below, those cases contain factual assumptions that some of the Court's more recent cases have called into question. Unlike other recent cases where we declined to revisit this issue, Mata's constitutional challenge to electrocution is not procedurally barred [93] and the parties have presented us with a full evidentiary record. [94] We also declined to address the issue in Mata's first appeal because we remanded the cause for resentencing. [T]he possibility remain[ed] that Mata [would] not be resentenced to death, or that the Nebraska Legislature [would] address this issue prior to the conclusion of Mata's resentencing. [95] But the Legislature did not address the issue. In this appeal, we have a full evidentiary record. We conclude that evolving standards of decency are applicable to method-of-execution challenges. Those standards require that we now review the evidence presented in this case in the light of modern scientific knowledge. At the trial level, Mata moved for a declaration that electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment under both the federal and state Constitutions. The issue was developed and tried as a challenge under both Constitutions. Although in his brief, Mata assigned that electrocution violates the U.S. Constitution, he did not specifically cite to the Nebraska Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Under our court rules, this oversight could preclude us from considering the state constitutional issue. However, because of the death penalty's severity and irrevocability, we have not strictly enforced briefing rules on capital defendants. [96] Moreover, for reasons explained below, we conclude that the Nebraska Constitution governs this issue. We have already. decided that we have a constitutional responsibility to determine whether electrocution is lawful. We stayed the execution of Carey Dean Moore, another death row inmate, pending the outcome of that determination. [97] Also, three other cases on our docket have raised the constitutionality of electrocution under the Nebraska Constitution. [98] We conclude that it is imperative for this court to resolve this issue. In fulfilling our responsibility and in the interest of judicial economy, we excuse the technical omission in Mata's brief. The Nebraska Constitution, article I, § 9, mirrors the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. [99] Obviously, we cannotunder the U.S. Constitution, declare that electrocution violates its cruel and unusual punishment provision because the U.S. Supreme Court has held otherwise. And we have stated that the Nebraska Constitution's cruel and unusual punishment provision `does not require more than does the [Eighth Amendment to the] U.S. Constitution.' [100] But as we will explain, we now believe this issue should be resolved by this court. Like this court, the U.S. Supreme Court has never reviewed objective evidence regarding electrocution's constitutionality. The Supreme Court based its holdings on state courts' factual assumptions, which, in turn, relied on untested science from 1890. Because we conclude that we can no longer rely on those factual assumptions and because no other state imposes electrocution as its sole method of execution, we will decide the issue under the Nebraska Constitution.