Document: 494 U.S. 370 110 S.Ct. 1190 108 L.Ed.2d 316 Richard BOYDE, Petitionerv.CALIFORNIA. No. 88-6613. Argued Nov. 28, 1989. Decided March 5, 1990. Rehearing Denied April 30, See 495 924, 1961. Syllabus All of the evidence presented by petitioner Boyde during penalty phase his state-court capital murder trial related to background and character. The court instructed jury, inter alia, in accordance with instructions 8.84.1 8.84.2, 1 California Jury Instructions, Criminal (4th ed.) (CALJIC), both which have since been amended. At time, CALJIC listed 11 factors that jury "shall consider" determining whether impose a sentence death or life imprisonment, last was so-called "unadorned version" factor (k), read: "Any other circumstance extenuates gravity crime even though it is not legal excuse for crime." also pursuant former consider all applicable aggravating mitigating circumstances, directed impose" either imprisonment depending upon circumstances outweighed vice versa. imposed sentence, State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Boyde's contention aforesaid versions 8.84.2 violated Eighth Fourteenth Amendments. Held: 1. giving did violate Amendment. claim mandatory nature instruction's language prevented from making an "individualized assessment" penalty's appropriateness foreclosed Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 299, 1078, 255 rejected challenge instruction similar language, holding requirement individualized sentencing satisfied allowing relevant evidence. has alleged interfered consideration such Moreover, there no constitutional basis suggestion must unfettered discretion decline if decides "outweigh" circumstances. States are free structure shape achieve more rational equitable administration penalty. Pp. 376-377. 2. Amendment precluding considering non-crime-related factors, as character, 377-386. (a) Where, here, challenged ambiguous therefore subject erroneous interpretation, proper inquiry reasonable likelihood applied way prevents constitutionally Although defendant need establish likely than impermissibly inhibited instruction, proceeding does only possibility inhibition. 378-381. (b) There jurors here interpreted court's preclude "Unadorned" (k) standing alone not, seems suggest, limit jury's "any crime," but any might crime, certainly includes when viewed together associated itself—such absence prior criminal activity by, felony convictions of, defendant, youth—it improbable would arrived at interpretation precluded Similarly, surely felt constrained ignore unobjected-to penalty-phase evidence—four days testimony consuming over 400 pages transcript particularly . received part trial." 381-384. (c) merit assertion arguments prosecutor immediately before deliberations made adopt impermissible instruction. Such generally carry less weight do court, objection correction be judged context they made. Here, although argued view sufficiently mitigate conduct, he never suggested character could considered. In fact, statements explicitly assumed relevant, defense counsel stressed necessity broad reading (k). 384-386. 46 Cal.3d 212, 250 Cal.Rptr. 83, 758 P.2d 25 (1988), affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA KENNEDY, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, joined, Parts I, II, III, IV BLACKMUN STEVENS, post, p. 386. Dennis A. Fischer, Santa Monica, petitioner. Frederick R. Millar, Jr., San Diego, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. This case requires us decide two used petitioner's cases each modified 1983 1985, respectively, consistent requirements We hold are. 2 Petitioner found guilty robbery, kidnaping, Dickie Gibson, night clerk 7-Eleven Store Riverside, California. introduced about 2:30 a.m. on January 15, 1981, entered store robbed gunpoint $33 cash register. then forced Gibson into waiting car, driven nephew, three men drove nearby orange grove. There, brought grove ordered him kneel down hands behind head. As begged life, shot once back head again forehead, killing him. returned special verdict personally committed homicide "express malice aforethought premeditation deliberation." 3 trial, instructed, ed. 1979) lists consider, take account guided by" imprisonment.1 eleventh "catch-all," reads: crime."2 concluding told followed this direction: "If you conclude outweigh shall death. However, determine confinement state prison without parole." (Emphasis added.)3 After hearing six concerning appropriate penalty, imposing death, denied motion reduce sentence. 4 On appeal, (1988). It because allow noted " 'all case,' "never considered." Id., 251, Cal.Rptr., 105, P.2d, 47. Therefore, "inconceivable believed that, permitted hear defendant's attorney's lengthy argument evidence, evidence." Ibid. 5 With regard agreed permissibly require juror vote 'unless, completion "weighing" process, under circumstances.' Cal.3d, 253, 106, 48 (quoting People Brown, 40 512, 541, 230 834, 849, 726 516, 532 (1985)). concluded, however, "[t]he adequately informed its penalty." 48. Three justices dissented affirmance dissenters feature misled believing required "outweighed" individual thought case. 257-266, 109-115, 51-57. granted certiorari, 490 1097, 109 2447, 104 1002 (1989), now affirm. 6 reiterates resulted Amendment, assessment Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 319, 2934, 2947, 106 256 (1989). Specifically, contends evaluating "absolute weight" justified He further asserts deciding whether, light response, argues interpret exercise moral judgment process weighing 7 discuss length, we our decision earlier Term (1990). Blystone, 307, S.Ct., 1083. unlike Boyde, present principle expounded clearly rejection well, suggests freedom But "in effort Franklin 487 164, 181, 2320, 2331, 101 155 (1988) (plurality opinion). Petitioner's unconstitutionally thus merit. 8 second issue proceedings 8.84.1, including "unadorned" able give effect offered Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 (1982); Penry, supra. assessing follow familiar rule stated Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 94 396, 38 368 (1973): 9 "In validity respondent's conviction, accept outset well-established proposition single may artificial isolation, overall charge. Boyd United States, 271 107 [46 442, 443, 70 L.Ed. 857] (1926)." 146-147, 400. 10 none statutory allowed provide Nine argues, focused immediate itself. Two others, (c), center presence violent convictions, were simply vehicles directly crime. Finally, claims "catch-all" language—"[a]ny crime" limited standard reviewing claimed restrict clear cases. Francis Franklin, 471 105 1965, 85 344 (1985), said question what understood charge meaning." 315-316, 1972 (emphasis added). Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 516-517, 99 2450, 2455-2466, 61 39 (1979). subsequent decisions, while sometimes purporting apply standard, adhered strictly formulation. 479 538, 541-542, 837, 839-840, 93 934 (1987), reference "could done "would done. And Terms ago Mills Maryland, 486 367, 1860, 100 384 alluded least different inquiries challenge: drawn instructions, id., 375-376, 1866 added); "substantial rested 'improper' ground," 377, 1867 how instructions. 389, 1872 (WHITE, concurring) Other opinions area likewise produced variety tests standards. See, e.g., U.S., 326, 2951 ("[A] well vehicle expressing deserve sentenced based evidence") supra, 192, 2337 (STEVENS, dissenting) ("[N]either Special Issues gave opportunity see Andres 333 740, 752, 68 880, 885, 92 1055 (1948) ("That derive meaning given probable ") 12 great differences among these various phrasings, important settle formulation courts employ kind federal question. Our cases, understandably, errors instructing reversal conviction. some instances, sure, held "when submitted alternative theories unconstitutionality conviction set aside. Stromberg California, 283 359 [51 532, 75 1117] (1931)." Leary 395 6, 31-32, 89 1532, 1545-1546, 23 (1969); Bachellar 397 564, 571, 90 1312, 1316, 570 (1970). those convict theory, theory theories. possible had basis, "it equally unconstitutional Bachellar, declined choose between possibilities. 13 concededly erroneous, nor so Cailfornia, 359, 51 1117 (1931). interpretation. think inconsistent "reasonable likelihood" think, better accommodates concerns finality accuracy makes dependent hypothetical "reasonable" is, course, strong policy favor accurate determination case, against retrials years after first where error amounts speculation.4 Jurors sit solitary isolation booths parsing subtle shades same lawyers might. Differences them thrashed out deliberative commonsense understanding taken place prevail technical hairsplitting. 14 Applying alone, prevent according "you [a]ny term "extenuate" defined mean "to lessen seriousness excuse." App. 34. permit evidence—presented psychologists, family, friends—of impoverished deprived childhood, inadequacies school student, strength face obstacles. explained Lynaugh: 'evidence belief, long society, defendants who commit acts attributable disadvantaged background, emotional mental problems, culpable excuse.' 2947 545, 841 (O'CONNOR, concurring)) through argue "extenuated" "excused" reason believe resist view, "long society," imposition character.5 15 Even led considered mitigation. itself, youth. When arrive precludes 16 four transcript—related unlikely transformed "favorable virtual charade." 542, 840. case," 33 added), phase. Presentation guarantee will feel entitled introduction volumes understand worst ambiguous. instances descriptions insufficient cure statutes sentencer disregard Hitchcock Dugger, 481 393, 398-399, 1821, 1824-1825, 95 347 (1987) ("[I]t clearer advisory judge refused nonstatutory ."); Lockett, 608, 2966 opinion) (Even Ohio's "liberal" construction statute, "only specified statute can mitigation sentence"). 17 reinforced understanding. court. usually billed advance matters argument, Tr. 3933, advocates; latter, often recognized, definitive binding law. Carter Kentucky, 450 288, 302-304, n. 20, 1112, 1120-1121, 67 241 (1981); Quercia 289 466, 470, 53 698, 699, 77 1321 (1933); Starr 153 614, 626, 919, 923, (1894). Arguments misstate law E.g., Greer Miller, 483 756, 765-766, 8, 3102, 3109, 97 618 (1987). say prosecutorial misrepresentations decisive having force counsel, like Greer, 766, 3109; Darden Wainwright, 477 168, 179, 2464, 2470, 91 144 (1986); Young, 470 1, 11-12, 1038, 1044-1045, 84 (1985); Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 647, 1868, 1873, 431 (1974) should lightly infer intends remark most damaging sitting exhortation, draw plethora interpretations"). 18 find objectionable maintains encouraged intolerably narrow "suggest [petitioner's] serious less," 24, "[n]othing I heard lessens 29. agree dissent point, "[a]lthough His principal tack contend irrelevant, urge despite past difficulties, responsibility actions. 28-30. Indeed, minimal relation circumstances: 19 "The Defendant dance. artistic talent. may, good children. During course twenty-four years, just random luck, going picked up something approve goes it, close." 4820-4821 20 Defense jury: "[I]t almost catchall phrase. Any circumstance, means 31.6 21 sum, Amendments Constitution. Affirmed. 22 whom BRENNAN joins, STEVENS join IV, dissenting. bedrock punishment jurisprudence offense 'character propensities fender.' Woodson North Carolina, 428 280, 304, 96 2978, 2991, 49 944 (1976) Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan Ashe, 302 51, 55, 58 59, 60, 82 43 (1937)); ante, 381-382. Without question, commitment provides hope avoid administering "discriminatorily, wantonly freakishly." Gregg Georgia 153, 220-221, 2909, 859 concurring judgment) (footnotes omitted). insistence know human being ultimate sanction operates shield arbitrary execution enforces abiding offender's apart punishment. 24 holds today affirmed reasonably regarding background. Eschewing fundamental "the risk spite call severe unacceptable incompatible commands Amendments," 605, 2965, (1978), adopts unduly stringent deficient. Under majority's approach, stand unless "there instruction" unconstitutionally. Ante, 380. Because met 'reasonable' interpreted" unconstitutionally, ibid., longstanding focus, contexts, manner. striking, majority review shared Court's qualitatively punishments, Spaziano Florida, 468 447, 468, 2, 3154, 3166, 340 (1984) part) (collecting cases), verdicts solicitude judgments. By adopting unprecedented places too much defendant. Further, conclusion evidence," 386, belied plain given. inadequate one adopted today, dissent. 26 * extensive borderline intelligence, inability get counseling, efforts reform. Friends family testified notwithstanding possesses redeeming qualities, ability work 27 California's then-operative "consider, return (CALJIC). explicitlyin formed Easley, 34 858, 878, 196 309, 321, 671 813, 825 (1983), inadequate. responds fully provided "[a]ny replies permitting II 28 essential corollary reasonable-doubt otherwise, cannot grounds. 367-368, 535, (1931); Williams 317 287, 291-292, 63 207, 209-210, 87 279 (1942); Cramer 325 36, 45, 65 918, 935, 1441 (1945); Yates 354 298, 312, 1064, 1073, 1356 (1957); 1545-1547, (1970); Chapman 386 18, 824, 828, 705 (1967) ("[B]efore harmless, declare belief harmless beyond doubt"). society values presumption innocence demands resolution doubt stripping members liberty leave undisturbed infirm intolerable. 29 Contrary intimation "less cases," 378, firmly strict shifted burden proof intent time Rejecting State's manner, declared "whether accorded rights depends instruction." 514, 2454 "no knowing convicted instruction," 526, 2460, Likewise, 1973, invalidate "a understood" placed emphasized declares be, rather 1971-1972 (citing Sandstrom, 2455-2456) 30 challenging constitutionality 839, (in "mere sympathy" excludes '[t]he [is] meaning' Francis, 1971-1972). recently unequivocally confirmed full critical judge." 1971-1972; 2455-2456; 839) 31 These review.1 To disagreed acknowledged finds particular manner." 332, 1980 (REHNQUIST, dissenting). squarely unqualifiedly dissent's proposal found, understanding" 323, 1975, 8. stated, settled (1931), exists relied reaching verdict, aside." 32 defends adoption ground "better fails, explain new differs § have" suggest Sandstrom's, "speculation" overturn difficult conceive so. possibility, lower standards all; version appropriates standard. appeared Napue Illinois, 360 264, 79 1173, 1217 (1959), reversed prosecutor's failure correct perjured affect verdict. "bound [the court's] false affected jury." 271, 1178 Based own record, overturned "may outcome 272, thereafter governing use mandates Bagley, 473 667, 679, 9, 3375, 3382, (1985) (opinion BLACKMUN, J.). equivalent "harmless error" California: 35 obtained aside derives Illinois. antedated [87 705] (1967), 'harmless doubt' established. little, any, difference formulated, Napue, terms 'whether complained contributed conviction,' 'requiring beneficiary prove contribute obtained.' 828]. precedents indicate harmless-error standard." 679-680, 3382 (citations internal quotation marks 36 history confirms precedential support; past, regarded focusing, trial. 389-393.2 37 extent make greater showing malleability encourages ad hoc courts. demonstrate "possibility" "impermissibly "need not" misled. Beyond probable, silent. Thus, appellate courts, applying speculate misunderstood creates fact misunderstood. discern principled advanced standard.3 That identical confusion More fundamentally, offers persuasive altering infirm. Despite declaration contrary, "strong case" equaled retrials" deficiencies embraced resolving doubts Beck Alabama, 447 625, 2382, 2389, 392 (1980) ("[T]he unwarranted tolerated stake"). characterize "policy" inappropriately dismissive heightened dedication fairness proceedings. Bullington Missouri, 451 430, 445-446, 1852, 1861-1862, 270 Woodson, 2991 alludes far compelling suggests. addressing certain post-trial challenges presumptively valid identified specific justifications requiring request newly discovered INS Abudu, 485 94, 107, 12, 904, 913, "finality somewhat weaker" claims. Strickland Washington, 466 668, 694, 2052, 2068, 80 674 (1984). "high presuppose[d] elements fair whose result [was] challenged." Strickland, "must show probability counsel's unprofessional errors, different." demanding heavily rise ineffective-assistance particular, government's assure effective difficulties discerning precise effects representation-related errors: 41 "Conflict interest aside, actual ineffectiveness alleging deficiency attorney performance general affirmatively prejudice. government responsible for, hence prevent, Attorney come infinite utterly prejudicial. They classified causing Nor sufficient precision inform attorneys correctly conduct avoid. Representation art, act omission sound brilliant another." 693, 2067. 42 For reasons, whenever shows "had conceivable proceeding." Instead, determined probability" test appropriately addresses attaches decisions contrast, relitigate facts representation strategies pursued Quite simply, properly role. core verdict; asks Bollenbach 326 607, 613, 66 402, 405, 350 (1946) ("A ought rest equivocal direction basic issue"). exacting unquestionably height, "presumptive validity" State, hand, retains reliance sustaining misunderstanding 44 refusal protective doubt" trials guarantees reliability determination. reflects "invad[e] [the] factfinding function assigns solely Carella 491 263, 268, 2419, 2422, 218 (1989) (SCALIA, (internal omitted; citations unclear, preferred "[t]o transfer judge's measuring yardsticks." Bollenbach, 406. 45 reasoning proceedings, assigned jury. Hicks 343, 346, 2227, 2229, 175 (where "has substantial legitimate expectation discretion," violates due affirm "simply frail conjecture harsh" instructed). range undermine confidence actually decided overrides "fundamental official power—a reluctance entrust plenary powers citizen group judges." Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 156, 88 1444, 1451, (1968). Accordingly, III 47 though, ensure unrelated accord factor's language.4 A"circum stance unambiguously refers Jurors, relying ordinary experience, offender. A typical example, describe qualities murderer; grave, suggests, demonstrated "criminal aberration otherwise character," 382-383, 5.5 Rather, society's deeply reflect (a 'reflect reasoned response crime' concurring)). resists natural focusing describes 'the 382 2947) added majority). According majority, statement reveals extenuating prove. tells us, several deserving encountered unusual suffers intellectual resources, qualities. culpability lessened too, serious. Rather answering central "extenuat[ing] opposed lessening culpability—Penry fixing punishment.6 appears position assumption nonsensical, held" determination, If value held, holds, sad irony reasoning, fundamentally rooted values, scrutiny run counter principle. 'axiomatic elementary' 'enforcement lies foundation law,' re Winship, 358, 363, 1068, 1072, (1970) Coffin 156 432, 453, 394, (1895)), apparently resolve adequacy accused share innocence. encourage their minutiae barest form principles "indispensable command respect community applications law." 364, 1072. inverts degree concern exhibit toward unacceptable. B 50 maintains, 'in charge.' 378 Nothing overcame inadequacy failing instruct referring '[a]ny signaled "[o]ther itself." 383. believes read limitation "other" prefatory refers. other" refer preceding factors; offense.7 turn "circumstance (k)'s language. phrase scope encompass 52 Equally unpersuasive presentation itself aware enough sentencer. sentence." 2947. mere mechanism satisfy requirements. attempts characterizing "clearly 384. Implicit Constitution words, affirmative unsupportable. 54 faced restrictions framed "prevent[ed] independent aspects character." 2965. alert role sentencing. Penry's retardation childhood abuse. informing evidence" dispositive. 328, 2952 instructions—taken whole—must character") cf. Sumner Shuman, 66, 76, 2716, 2722, 56 ("Not [does] capital-sentencing schemes 'Lockett listen' 115, 10, 877, (1982)). fairly conclude, then, right adequate 55 examining argument" reinforce 'never considered,' 385 25, (1988)), to. Factor accomplished purpose own, prosecutor, needed repeat opening described asked rhetorically: "[D]oes relieve less; don't so." 24. merely went assign 385-386. tracks specifying considered, attached untrue insubstantial, emphasizes indeed way, closing message fall within (k): look says extenuation, says, 'To Again, designed bring home focuses substance sought potentially misleading discounted satisfactorily exploited escape attention comments failed communicate very least, limited. neither words assurance 59 "When brings action deny interests magnitude historically explicit protected exclude nearly judgment.' Santosky Kramer, 745, 755, 1388, 1395, 599 (1982) Addington Texas, 441 418, 423, 1804, 1808, 60 323 (1979)). personal resources.8 regards unnecessary growing unjustified hostility violation defendants. tolerate "leav[e] people doubt," undeserving fate put hasten discriminatory, wanton, freakish intolerable Furman Georgia, 408 238, 2726, 346 (1972). V Adhering my cruel prohibited Amendments, 231-241, 2973-2977 (MARSHALL, dissenting), vacate below affirming complete provides: [each] [except hereafter instructed]. You following applicable: "(a) existence circumstance[s] true. "(b) involved attempted violence expressed implied threat violence. "(c) "(d) Whether influence extreme disturbance. "(e) victim participant homicidal consented act. "(f) justification extenuation conduct. "(g) acted duress domination another person. "(h) capacity appreciate criminality conform impaired disease defect affects intoxication. "(i) age "(j) accomplice participation commission relatively minor. "(k) 813 order potential future, "should 'any 'aspect record proffers death.' 322, 826, 604, 2964, (1978) opinion)). formally amended directs [and sympathetic aspect [that offers] .]." 8.85(k) (5th 1988). 516 (1986), "le[ft] room role." 544, 17, 852, 534, 17. deserves parole, 540, 848, 531, examined merits context, prejudice 1978 proposed verbatim, 8.88 1988), opinion: 'The mechanical side imaginary scale, assignment weights them. whatever deem consider. totality persuaded [circumstances] comparison warrants instead parole.' 19, 853, 19. demonstrating trial-related ineffective assistance Sixth Deportation witnesses trier fact." Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 874, 3440, 3450, 73 1193 (1982). prosecution disclose allegedly exculpatory disclosed defense, 682, 3383, (1985). receive lead outcome. "gravity" "seriousness" "extenuates "lessens circumstance" excuse, naturally excuse. oral (though brief), won prize dance choreography showed useful bars, Skipper South 476 1669, (1986). argued, consideration. Skipper, introduce postcrime behavior pose danger contest prison, "model prisoner" future dangerousness, ability. 4607-4608. served murder, pertain Skipper. dancing strategy portray himself strengths difficulties. therefore, extenuated amicus prosecutors bear obviously influenced trials. pressed cause Prosecutors interested advocates, urging weighty attributes uncertainty 886, (1948), quoting follows: 'That probable." 379 (ellipsis emphasis fails quote "[i]n resolved accused." 886. Read passage probably misinterpreted, accused; implies, misinterpreted overturned. mischaracterizes turned 'equally ground,' 380 1316) majority), possibilities," misrepresentation becomes apparent ellipsis inserted removed: "[S]o tell, 'merely [petitioners' views Vietnam were] themselves offensive hearers.' Street New York, [394 576, 592, 1354, 1366, 572 (1969) ]. petitioners' ground, 1316 clear, ground." observation "equally likely" that—an observation. 569, 1315 ("[I]n judge, number grounds") perceives little approach reformulated alarming insensitivity premises underlying justice system. Just awareness consequences certainty correctness commensurate phrasings," 379, unfounded. judgments tolerates significant other, sets name every individual." 363-364, 1072-1073, repudiation malleable "more here: "This Its generate results thereby compound plagued Perhaps importantly, incentive weed ." 322-323, 1975-1976, concedes, 374, recognized "potential misunderstanding" generated supplement unadorned (1983) (1978)). unsurprising treatise, describing evolution classification system, reports "serious offenses" manslaughter, rape, arson came called felonies, whereas presumably serious" offenses, misdemeanors. C. Torcia, Wharton's Law 81 (14th 1978); Argersinger Hamlin, 407 34, 2006, 2011, 530 (1972) ("[E]ven prosecutions offenses lawyer"). characterization offense-related elements, crimes regardless offender captures intuitive sense extrinsic surrounding doctrine duress, necessity, entrapment, ignorance mistake. W. LaFave & Scott, Substantive Law, Ch. spoken issue, supports extenuate analytically distinct traceable, part, 54-55, 60-61, (1937) added): "[P]unishment ex-convicts. sentences, offender." seven ten (k)—factors (a), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j)—relate offense. 373-374, instruction). reasons canvassed BRENNAN's (1990), scheme deprives Like deliver matter Channeling scheme, deprive choice reject warrant it.

Category: 0