Document: Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHAUN MICHAEL BOSSE v. OKLAHOMA ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO CRIMINAL APPEALS No. 15–9173. Decided October 11, 2016 PER CURIAM. In Booth Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), this Court held that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence” does not “relate directly to the circumstances of crime.” Id., at 501–502, 507, n. 10. Four years later, in Payne Tennessee, 501 808 (1991), granted certiorari reconsider ban on “ ‘victim impact’ evidence relating personal characteristics and emotional crimes victim’s family.” 817. The was wrong conclude re­ quired such ban. Payne, 827. That holding expressly “limited to” particular type testimony. 830, 2. “Booth also admission family members’ characteriza­ tions opinions about crime, defendant, appropriate sentence violates Amendment,” but no presented so had occasion aspect decision. Ibid. Oklahoma Criminal Appeals has “implicitly overruled portion regard­ ing characterizations defendant sentence.” Conover State, 933 P.2d 904, 920 (1997) (emphasis added); see Ledbetter 880, 890–891 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). decision below presents straightforward application interpreta­ tion Payne. A convicted petitioner Shaun Michael 2 Bosse three counts first-degree murder for 2010 killing Katrina Griffin her two children. State sought death penalty. Over Bosse’s objection, asked victims’ relatives recommend jury. All recommended death, agreed. appealed, arguing testimony violated under Booth. affirmed his sentence, concluding there “no error.” 2015 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 57–58, 360 P.3d 1203, 1226–1227. We grant motion leave proceed forma pauperis, now vacate judgment Appeals. “[I]t is Court’s prerogative alone overrule one its precedents.” United States Hatter, 532 557, 567 (2001) (quoting Oil Co. Khan, 522 3, 20 (1997); internal quotation marks omitted); Rodriguez de Quijas Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 477, 484 (1989). Ap­ peals recognized “specifically acknowl­ edged did affect” Booth’s prohibition appro­ priate punishment. Ledbetter, 890–891. should have ended inquiry into whether bars testimony; court go further implicitly entirety. “Our decisions remain binding prec­ edent until we fit them, regardless subsequent cases raised doubts their continuing vitality.” Hohn States, 524 236, 252–253 (1998). remains bound by members unless reconsiders state erred con­ 3 cluding otherwise. argued opposing that, even if ruling, error affect jury’s determination, defendant’s rights were any event protected mandatory view required law. See Brief Opposition 14–15. Those contentions may be addressed remand extent deems appropriate. vacated, case remanded proceedings inconsistent with opinion. It ordered. THOMAS, J., concurring _________________ 15–9173 [October 2016] JUSTICE whom ALITO joins, concurring. admit- ting case. today correctly observes our Because “it precedents,” (1997), Ap- invalidated vacating below, says nothing decided or swept away analytical foundations. I join opinion understanding.

Category: 0