Opinion ID: 30755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Penry Decisions

Text: In Penry I, the Supreme Court held that (1) “at the time Penry’s conviction became final, it was clear from [Lockett v.Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978),] and [Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982),] that a State could not, consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, prevent the sentencer from considering and giving effect to evidence relevant to the defendant’s background or character or to the circumstances of the offense that mitigate against imposing the death penalty,” 492 U.S. at 318; (2) “[t]he rule Penry [sought]—that when such mitigating evidence [of his mental retardation and abused childhood] is presented, Texas juries must . . . be given jury instructions that make it possible for them to give effect to that mitigating evidence in determining whether the death penalty should be imposed—is not a ‘new rule’ under Teague because it is dictated by Eddings and Lockett,” id. at 318-19; (3) “[u]nderlying Lockett and Eddings is the principle that punishment should be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal defendant,” id. at 319; (4) “[I]t is not enough simply to allow the defendant to present mitigating evidence to the sentencer. The sentencer must also be able to consider and give effect to that evidence in imposing sentence,” id.; (5) “[i]n order to ensure reliability in the determination that death is the 73 appropriate punishment in a specific case, the jury must be able to consider and give effect to any mitigating evidence relevant to a defendant’s background and character or the circumstances of the crime,” id. at 328; and (6) therefore, “in the absence of instructions informing the jury that it could consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and abused [childhood] background by declining to impose the death penalty, . . . the jury was not provided with a vehicle for expressing its reasoned moral response to that evidence in rendering its sentencing decision,” id. at 328. (Internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, the Supreme Court in Penry I agreed with Penry’s argument “that his mitigating evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse has relevance to his moral culpability beyond the scope of the special issues, and that the jury was unable to express its reasoned moral response to that evidence in determining whether death was the appropriate punishment.” Id. at 322. The Court explained in detail why it rejected the State’s contrary argument that the jury was able to consider and give effect to all of Penry’s mitigating evidence in answering the three special issues. Id. The first special issue, which asked whether the defendant acted “deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased . . . would result,” impermissibly limited 74 the jury’s function because the term “deliberately” had not been defined by the Texas Legislature, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, or the trial court’s instructions. Id. at 322. Even if the jurors “understood ‘deliberately’ to mean something more than . . . ‘intentionally’ committing murder, those jurors may still have been unable to give effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence in answering the first special issue.” Id. The reason was “deliberately” was not defined “in a way that would clearly direct the jury to consider fully Penry’s mitigating evidence as it bears on his personal culpability.” Id. at 323. Consequently, the Court concluded, unless there are “jury instructions defining ‘deliberately’ in a way that would clearly direct the jury to consider fully Penry’s mitigating evidence as it bears on his personal culpability, we cannot be sure that the jury was able to give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and history of abuse in answering the first special issue.” Id. at 323. “Thus, we cannot be sure that the jury’s answer to the first special issue reflected a reasoned moral response to Penry’s mitigating evidence.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). The second special issue, which asked “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society,” permitted the jury to consider and give effect to Penry’s mental 75 retardation and childhood abuse as “relevant only as an aggravating factor[.]” Id. The second special issue was inadequate both because it only gave effect to Penry’s evidence as an aggravating factor, and because it did not allow the jury to give full effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence. Id. at 323. Thus, the Court concluded that Penry’s evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse was a “two-edged sword,” diminishing “his blameworthiness for his crime even as it indicates that there is a probability that he will be dangerous in the future.39 Id. at 324. As a result the majority held, “in the absence of instructions informing the jury that it could consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and abused background by declining to impose the death penalty, . . . the jury was not provided with a vehicle for expressing its ‘reasoned moral response’ to that evidence in rendering its sentence.” Id. at 328. In Penry II the Court again confronted the constitutionality of Penry’s death sentence, this time after re-sentencing in the wake of Penry I. Texas attempted to correct the defects the Court identified in Penry I with a supplemental instruction to the three special issues. This so-called “nullification instruction” said: 39 The third special issue, which asked “whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to provocation, if any, by the deceased,” was not relevant there (or here) because provocation was (and is) not in issue. 76 You are instructed that when you deliberate on the questions posed in the special issues, you are to consider mitigating circumstances, if any, supported by the evidence presented in both phases of the trial, whether presented by the state or the defendant. A mitigating circumstance may include, but is not limited to, any aspect of the defendant's character and record or circumstances of the crime which you believe could make a death sentence inappropriate in this case. If you find that there are any mitigating circumstances in this case, you must decide how much weight they deserve, if any, and therefore, give effect and consideration to them in assessing the defendant's personal culpability at the time you answer the special issue. If you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating evidence, if any, that a life sentence, as reflected by a negative finding to the issue under consideration, rather than a death sentence, is an appropriate response to the personal culpability of the defendant, a negative finding should be given to one of the special issues. Penry II, 532 U.S. at 789-790. The Penry II Court explained that there were two interpretations of this instruction, neither of which resolved the concerns it identified in Penry I. First, the Court noted the instruction may have told jurors to consider Penry’s mitigating evidence within the special issues. But such an interpretation left “the jury in no better position than was the jury in Penry I,” because “none of the special issues is broad enough to provide a vehicle for the jury to give mitigating effect to the evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and childhood abuse.” Id. at 798. Alternatively, the instruction may have asked the jury to answer “no” to a special issue if it believed Penry did not deserve the death penalty, regardless of its honest answer to the question. 77 This interpretation was also constitutionally unsound because it would require jurors to violate their oath to render a “true verdict” to give effect to Penry’s evidence, putting jurors in a logical and ethical bind. Id. at 799-800. Thus, the Penry II majority concluded, the Texas court ruling that the supplemental instruction cured the Penry I problems was objectively unreasonable.