Opinion ID: 145740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Smith I

Text: The ruling of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Smith's second state habeas proceeding was reversed by this Court in Smith I. The Court's summary disposition first rejected as unconstitutional the Texas court's screening test for constitutionally significant evidence. 543 U.S., at 43-48, 125 S.Ct. 400; see also Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 124 S.Ct. 2562, 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004). The Smith I Court next observed that although Smith had presented relevant mitigating evidence, the jury's consideration was tied by law to findings of deliberateness and future dangerousness that had little, if anything, to do with that evidence. 543 U.S., at 45, 48, 125 S.Ct. 400. There was, in other words, a Penry error. As a final matter, despite differences between the nullification charges in Smith I and Penry II, the variances were constitutionally insignificant because  Penry [II] identified a broad and intractable problem. 543 U.S., at 46, 47, 125 S.Ct. 400 (citing Penry II, 532 U.S., at 799-800, 121 S.Ct. 1910). The nullification charge was therefore inadequate under Penry II. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded. 543 U.S., at 48-49, 125 S.Ct. 400.