Opinion ID: 4535848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim Eight—Stromberg Error

Text: Smith’s § 2254 petition argues that because the Nevada Supreme Court invalidated the trial court’s depravity of mind instructions in Smith I and Smith II, Smith II’s affirmance of the death penalty for Wendy’s murder was contrary to the clearly established federal law set forth in Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). Stromberg held that a verdict is subject to challenge if a jury, presented with alternative theories of guilt, may have relied on an unconstitutional theory to reach its verdict. Id. at 367–68. Smith argues that it is unclear whether twelve jurors unanimously found “mutilation” to support the statutory aggravator because some of them may have relied solely on 34 SMITH V. BAKER the invalid depravity-of-mind theory. If so, Smith argues, his death sentence contravenes Stromberg. The State argued in federal court that Smith’s Stromberg claim was procedurally defaulted. The district court disagreed, but it denied this claim on its merits. The district court concluded that any error in the depravity jury instruction was harmless because there was “strong indication” the jury unanimously agreed on the mutilation theory. On appeal to our court, the State abandoned its procedural default argument. The State conceded this waiver in its argument before our court, so we address the merits of Smith’s Stromberg claim. See United States v. Pridgette, 831 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2016). To be eligible for the death penalty, Nevada law required Smith’s second penalty-phase jury to find at least one aggravating circumstance that was not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554. The single aggravating circumstance alleged in Smith’s case was that “the murder involved torture, depravity of mind or the mutilation of the victim.” See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.033(8). The trial court instructed the first penalty jury that depravity of mind required: an inherent deficiency of moral sense and rectitude. It consists of evil, corrupt and perverted intent which is devoid of regard for human dignity and which is indifferent to human life. It is a state of mind outrageously, wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman. In Smith I, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that this depravity instruction was unconstitutionally vague. 881 P.2d SMITH V. BAKER 35 at 655–56. The court explained that its opinion in Robins v. State, 798 P.2d 558 (Nev. 1990) had addressed the constitutionality of the very same depravity-of-mind instruction, and found it deficient. Robins relied on Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980) to rule that the depravity instruction required “torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind.” Robins, 798 P.2d at 629. The Nevada Supreme Court reiterated the same requirement in Libby v. State, 859 P.2d 1050, 1058 (Nev. 1993). Smith I concluded that the depravity instruction given in Smith’s first penalty hearing was unconstitutionally vague because “the jury was not instructed that depravity of mind must include torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself.” 881 P.2d at 655. Smith I also acknowledged a unanimity problem was presented by the possibility that some of Smith’s jurors may have relied on the infirm instruction to impose the death penalty. Id. Because the special verdict form did not require that the jury separately consider depravity, or torture, or mutilation; the court observed, “the jury in the instant case found in the disjunctive torture, depravity of mind, or mutilation and did not specify which of the three it found. It therefore might well have based its finding of the aggravating circumstance on depravity of mind.” Id. The court further observed that because the jury found no other aggravating circumstances, it could not “reweigh the aggravating and mitigating evidence” to determine whether this error was harmless. Id at 656. The court vacated the two death sentences and remanded for a second penalty-phase hearing. Id. 36 SMITH V. BAKER The second jury was instructed: You are instructed that the following factors are circumstances by which Murder of the First Degree may be aggravated: The murder involved torture, depravity of mind or the mutilation of the victim. The State is alleging depravity of mind in the murder of Kristy Cox [the twelve-year-old]. The State is alleging torture or depravity of mind or mutilation in the murder of Wendy Cox [the twenty-year-old]. The trial court gave the second jury the same depravity-ofmind instruction that Smith I had declared unconstitutionally vague, Instruction 10, and added Instruction 11 to further define depravity of mind. Instruction 11 premised depravity of mind on the undefined phrase, “serious and depraved physical abuse”: In order to find either torture or mutilation of a victim you must find that there was torture or mutilation beyond the act of killing itself. In order to find depravity of mind you must find serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself. The court separately defined “torture” and “mutilate” in Instructions 9 and 12, but it did not further define the “serious and depraved physical abuse” required for depravity of mind. SMITH V. BAKER 37 The trial court instructed the second jury: “you must be unanimous in your finding as to the aggravating circumstance,” but it did not instruct the jury that it had to be unanimous as to the underlying theory supporting the aggravating circumstance (torture, mutilation, or depravity of mind). During defense counsel’s closing argument, the trial court interrupted counsel to stress that there was only one statutory aggravating circumstance alleged, and that it had three subparts: to the extent that Mr. Evans is saying that there may be some confusion as to whether there is one aggravating circumstance or more than one, he’s absolutely correct; there is only one aggravating circumstance that is alleged by the State in this case, and that is composed of the subparts mutilation, torture or depravity of mind. I’m going to correct what is a fairly broad instruction, which is Instruction Number 7, to specifically say, “The State has alleged that an aggravating circumstance is present in this case,” so there can be no doubt that it is one aggravating circumstance with three subparts. One of those subparts is related to one of the victims or is alleged by the State with reference to one of the victims, all three of the subparts are alleged with reference to the other victim; but it is only one total aggravating circumstance. Smith II, 953 P.2d at 266 n.4. In its closing, the prosecution argued to the second jury that “if . . . you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating factor exists, and it doesn’t have to be all of the parts of the circumstance, it can 38 SMITH V. BAKER be one, in the case of Kristy, or one or two or three in the case of Wendy[.]” The second jury found “depravity of mind” as to Kristy’s murder, and “depravity of mind” and “mutilation” for Wendy’s murder, and it reimposed the death penalty for both murders. Smith challenged Instructions 10 and 11 on direct appeal from the second sentencing hearing, and Smith II invalidated the depravity instructions again. The Nevada Supreme Court observed “[s]ince Robins, this court has upheld sentences of death based on depravity of mind only where there has been evidence of mutilation or of torture.” Id. at 266. The court explained that to the extent “Smith I may have created some confusion on the issue, depravity of mind, as an aggravator, may only be relied upon where evidence of torture or mutilation exists.” Id. at 266 n.3. Smith II held that “jury instruction [11] is a departure from what this court has previously determined is constitutionally acceptable,” i.e., it did not conform to the standard the Nevada Supreme Court adopted in Robins. Id. at 267. Because the second jury had “no guidance” as to what constituted “serious and depraved physical abuse,” Smith II concluded “the jury instruction on depravity of mind failed to properly channel the jury’s discretion in connection with the charges [] stemming from Kristy’s death. An aggravating circumstance based on depravity of mind must include torture or mutilation beyond the act of killing itself.” Id. at 267 (citations omitted). For Kristy’s murder, depravity of mind was the State’s sole theory supporting a death-eligible aggravator. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the death sentence imposed for Kristy’s murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Id. SMITH V. BAKER 39 This ruling left the aggravating circumstance in Wendy’s murder as the sole support for the death penalty. The second jury checked boxes next to “depravity of mind” and “mutilation” for Wendy’s murder, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty based on the jury’s finding of mutilation in Wendy’s case. The court concluded that the instructions for mutilation were constitutionally sound and that sufficient evidence supported the finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Wendy’s murder involved mutilation. Id. at 267–68. The court did not address whether there was indication that the jury unanimously decided upon mutilation.