Opinion ID: 430956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 1975 Alabama Death Penalty Statute's Sentencing Procedures

Text: 37 The Alabama death penalty statute provides that if the jury finds the defendant guilty of a capital offense [i]t shall fix the punishment at death. Ala.Code Sec. 13-11-2(a) (1975) (repealed 1981). The jury has no discretion to fix any other penalty. The jury is not informed that the judge is the final sentencing authority and is thus led to believe, by implication, that its sentence will be final. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 639 n. 15, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2390 n. 15, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). 38 If the defendant is convicted of a capital offense, and the death sentence thus automatically imposed by the jury, the statute provides that the trial judge must then hold a separate sentencing hearing at which evidence [m]ay be presented as to any matters that the court deems relevant to sentence and shall include any matters relating to any of the [statutory] aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Sec. 13-11-3. The judge then determines whether to sentence the defendant to death or to life imprisonment without parole. Sec. 13-11-4. [A]fter weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, [the court] may refuse to accept the death penalty as fixed by the jury and sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without parole. Id. Or [t]he court, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the fixing of the punishment at death by the jury, may accordingly sentence the defendant to death. Id. If the court imposes the death sentence, it must set forth in writing the factual findings from the trial and the sentencing hearing, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances, that form the basis for its sentence. Id. The judgment of conviction and sentence of death are subject to automatic appeal. Sec. 13-11-5. 39 For clarity of analysis, we repeat that under this statutory scheme the trial judge is the final sentencing authority and that the jury's mandatory death sentence is not statutorily binding on the judge. For this reason, the district court termed the jury's mandatory sentence the phantom sentence. Petitioner contends, however, that the statute's express requirement that the judge weigh the factor of the phantom sentence--a factor petitioner claims is facially unconstitutional because it is unguided and standardless, reflects a blurred consideration of guilt and sentencing concerns, and does not reflect an individualized consideration of the particular defendant--in determining whether or not to impose the death sentence renders the sentencing procedure constitutionally infirm. 21 Accordingly, petitioner claims that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. 22 We agree. 40 In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), the Court concluded that capital punishment, as then administered under capital sentencing procedures vesting unguided sentencing discretion in the ultimate sentencing authority, had become constitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. [W]here discretion is afforded a sentencing body on a matter so grave as the determination of whether a human life should be taken or spared, that discretion must be suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action. Zant v. Stephens, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2741, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 189, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). 41 This means that if a State wishes to authorize capital punishment it has a constitutional responsibility to tailor and apply its law in a manner that avoids the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty.... It must channel the sentencer's discretion by clear and objective standards that provide specific and detailed guidance, and that make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764-1765, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (citations and footnotes omitted). 42 And because there is [a] qualitative difference between death and any other permissible form of punishment, 'there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.'  Zant v. Stephens, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2747 (quoting Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976)). Thus, the Court's decisions since Furman have [m]ade clear that the States may impose this ultimate sentence only if they follow procedures designed to assure reliability in sentencing determinations. Barclay v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 3418, 3429, 77 L.Ed.2d 1134, 1139 (1983) (Stevens, Powell, JJ. concurring). In assessing capital sentencing procedures the Court has [a]ttempted to provide standards for a constitutional death penalty that would serve both goals of a measured, consistent application and fairness to the accused. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 111, 102 S.Ct. 869, 874, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). 43 Due to this heightened standard of reliability in capital sentencing procedures, involving considerations of both consistency and fairness to the accused, capital sentencing procedures must be tailored to provide for [a]n individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime. Zant v. Stephens, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2744 (emphasis in original). Thus, sentencing schemes that exclude from the sentencer's consideration the critically relevant factors of the character of the individual defendant and the circumstances of the crime as mitigating factors are constitutionally inadequate. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). 44 Likewise, particular features included in a sentencing scheme may be [s]ufficiently inadequate, unreliable, or unfair that they violate the United States Constitution. Barclay v. Florida, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 3429, 77 L.Ed.2d at 1150 (Stevens, Powell, JJ. concurring). Each aggravating factor included in a sentencing scheme [m]ust satisfy a constitutional standard derived from the principles of Furman itself. Zant v. Stephens, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2742. Therefore, an aggravating factor, whether statutory or nonstatutory, considered by the sentencer in its determination of whether to impose the death sentence must not be [c]onstitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process. Id. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2747. 45 In light of these principles, and mindful of the Court's admonition that [a]lthough not every imperfection in the deliberative process is sufficient, even in a capital case, to set aside a state court judgment, the severity of the sentence mandates careful scrutiny in the review of any colorable claim of error, id., we turn to an examination of the factor of the jury's mandatory death sentence included in Alabama's capital sentencing determination. 46 First, the jury's mandatory death sentence is a factor in the sentencing process which must meet the constitutional standards established in Furman to be permissible. 23 This is a test the mandatory death sentence factor clearly does not meet. A mandatory death sentence requirement, withdrawing all sentencing discretion from the jury, results in a distortion of the guilt/innocence determination in order to allow for such discretion. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976). The jury's decision to exercise this de facto sentencing discretion is both unguided and standardless, and necessarily reflects a blurred consideration of guilt/innocence and sentencing concerns. A mandatory death penalty statute therefore [d]oes not fulfill Furman 's basic requirement by replacing arbitrary and wanton jury discretion with objective standards to guide, regularize and make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death. Id. at 303, 96 S.Ct. at 2990-2991. Further, the jury's mandatory death sentence by definition does not reflect any individualized focus on the circumstances of the particular offense and the character and propensities of the offender. Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976). Fundamentally, the mandatory death sentence is a factor which is totally irrelevant to the sentencing process; it is simply a statutory consequence of the jury's finding of guilt of a capital offense, and reflects no considerations in favor of imposing the death penalty in any particular case. Cf. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 642, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2392, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) (In the final analysis the difficulty with the Alabama statute is that it interjects irrelevant considerations into the factfinding process...). Because the mandatory death sentence as a statutorily required factor to be considered in the sentencing process is a factor which is unguided and standardless, reflects no individualized consideration of the particular defendant or crime, and is irrelevant to the sentencing process, we hold that it is a constitutionally impermissible factor in Alabama's capital sentencing scheme. 47 We further find that the constitutionally impermissible factor of the jury's mandatory death sentence infects the trial judge's sentencing determination. Although a separate sentencing hearing is held by the trial judge, at which evidence of aggravating and mitigating factors is introduced, the statute requires that in making the determination whether to impose the death sentence after reviewing this evidence the judge must decide whether he will [r]efuse to accept the death penalty as fixed by the jury. Ala.Code Sec. 13-11-4 (1975) (repealed 1981). Moreover, the statute requires the judge to weigh the mandatory death sentence factor in the balance with his consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in deciding to impose the death penalty. Id. Thus, the constitutionally impermissible factor of the jury's mandatory death sentence must be given weight in the judge's own sentencing decision. In Beck the Supreme Court noted the influence of this factor on the judge's sentencing decision: 48 [I]t is manifest that the jury's verdict must have a tendency to motivate the judge to impose the same sentence that the jury did. Indeed, according to statistics submitted by the State's Attorney General, it is fair to infer that the jury verdict will ordinarily be followed by the judge even though he must hold a separate sentencing hearing in aggravation and mitigation before he imposes sentence. 49 447 U.S. at 645, 100 S.Ct. at 2393 (footnote omitted). 50 In order to arrive at a sentencing determination unaffected by the influence of the jury's mandatory death sentence, the judge must disobey the statute's express requirement that the mandatory death sentence be considered in his decision. 24 51 We hold that the inclusion of the constitutionally invalid factor of the jury's mandatory death sentence in the sentencing determination, and the statutorily required influence of that invalid factor on the judge's sentencing decision, renders the 1975 Alabama death penalty statute's sentencing procedures facially unconstitutional.