Document: 544 U.S. 133 BROWN, WARDENv.PAYTON No. 03-1039. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 10, 2004. Decided March 22, 2005. In the penalty phase respondent Payton's trial following his conviction on capital murder and related charges, counsel presented witnesses who testified that, during one year nine months Payton had been incarcerated since arrest, he made a sincere commitment to God, participated in prison Bible study ministry, calming effect other prisoners. The judge gave jury instructions that followed verbatim text California statute, setting forth 11 different factors, labeled (a) through (k), guide determining whether impose death sentence or life imprisonment. last such instruction, so-called factor (k) directed jurors consider "[a]ny circumstance which extenuates gravity crime even though it is not legal excuse for crime." closing, prosecutor offered incorrect opinion did allow them anything happened after crime. Although also told several times view, they heard any evidence mitigation, discussed considerable detail argued circumstances facts case, coupled with prior violent acts, outweighed mitigating religious conversion. When defense objected argument, court admonished prosecutor's comments were merely but explicitly instruct interpretation was incorrect. Finding special course rape, recommended be sentenced death, complied. affirmed. Applying Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, considered constitutionality identical state held considering context proceedings, there no reasonable likelihood believed required disregard evidence. Federal District disagreed granted habeas relief, ruling Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) apply. en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed and, like Court, AEDPA On remand from this light Woodford Garceau, 538 202, purported decide case under deferential standard mandates. It again affirmed, concluding unreasonably applied holding instruction unconstitutionally ambiguous case. error, determined, make clear could concerning postcrime conversion allowed urge erroneous interpretation. Held: Circuit's decision contrary limits federal review imposed by AEDPA. Pp. 141-147. provides when petitioner's claim has adjudicated merits court, may grant relief unless court's adjudication "resulted to, involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, as determined States." 28 C. § 2254(d)(1). A state-court Court's precedents if applies rule contradicts governing law set cases, confronts materially indistinguishable reaches result. E. g., Williams Taylor, 529 362, 405. involves objectively manner. ibid. These conditions have established. P. 141. (b) Boyde, cannot said acted declining distinguish between precrime read establishing (k)'s broad enough accommodate evidence, Boyde's reasoning control because concerned precrime, postcrime, mitigation However, consideration might crime, see S., at 382, believe character transformation do so. 141-143. (c) Even assume argument remarks mislead into believing conclusion unreasonable, therefore just type shields review. similar facts. Considering whole determine most likely while within instruction's reach, simply too insubstantial overcome arguments imposing penalty; nor rely upon support its analysis. 143-147. 346 F. 3d 1204, reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered O'CONNOR, SCALIA, THOMAS, BREYER, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, joined, post, p. 147. 148. SOUTER, dissenting STEVENS GINSBURG, 149. REHNQUIST, took part CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. A. Natalia Cortina, Deputy Attorney General cause petitioner. With her briefs Bill Lockyer, General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Gary W. Schons, Senior Steven T. Oetting, Supervising Melissa Mandel, General. Dean Gits respondent. him brief Maria Stratton, Mark Drozdowski, Rosalie L. Rakoff.* JUSTICE KENNEDY Court. 1 States Appeals Circuit, convening banc, William Payton. permit all presented. general We petition certiorari, 541 1062 (2004), 2254(d). now reverse. 2 * 1980, spending night boarding house, raped another boarder, Pamela Montgomery, then used butcher knife stab death. proceeded enter bedroom house's patron, Patricia Pensinger, she slept aside 10-year-old son, Blaine. Blaine resisted, started well. blade bent, went kitchen retrieve another. Upon intervention boarders, dropped second fled. 3 arrested tried first-degree rape Montgomery attempted murders Pensinger. guilt convicted counts. phase, where introduced incident stabbed girlfriend; rape; drug-related felony conviction; jail-house conversations admitted "urge kill" "severe problem sex women" caused view women potential victims "stab ... rape." People Payton, Cal. 4th 1050, 1058, 839 2d 1035, 1040 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Defense concentrated behavior eight witnesses. They spent classes 5 Before closing arguments, in-chambers conference discuss instructions. He proposed give — later statute. Penal Code Ann. 190.3 (West 1988). "consider, take account guided by" imprisonment Jury Instr., Crim., 8.84.1 (4th rev. ed. 1979). 6 particular series, instruction. Factor catchall contrast greater specificity preceded it. As explained jury, (The statute amended.) 7 asked modified direct more specific terms, defendant's background. prosecution, hand, indicated intended encompass background character. agreed covering declined, however, modify wording, repeated addition, stated: "I you gentlemen, I said, your can certainly relate back those factors argue character, background, history, mental condition, physical condition; fall category `k' jury." App. 59. 8 prefaced instructing what would hear "not argument" "[you] should own recollection evidence." Id., 62. "after [crime] later." 68. parties dispute misstatement law. comment moved mistrial, denied. 69-70. 9 newfound Christianity. 70. concluded urging acts 75-76. although awkwardly worded, designed cover precisely kind 10 final included well directing trial. 94. found committing returned verdict recommending sentence. 21 years murder. appeal incorrectly led postconviction conduct receive violation Eighth Amendment Constitution. Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 602-609 (1978) (plurality opinion). maintained, misleading, rendered so argument. 12 5-to-2 decision, rejected claims convictions supra. 370 (1990), same proceedings 4th, 1070-1071, 2d, 1048. sought here. declined certiorari. 510 (1994). 13 writ corpus Central reiterating prevented (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, apply motion appointment before AEDPA's effective date, file until date. de novo petition. 14 divided panel Woodford, 258 905 (2001). rehearing 6-to-5 vote, order granting relief. 299 815 (2002). panel, govern It, too, conducted claims, encompassed reinforced arguments. 15 petitioned Pursuant 202 (2003), request suffice "pending" we State's petition, 975 remanded reconsideration standards. See 362 (2000). 16 remand, previous vote. 1204 (CA9 2003). concluded, 17 relied, initial proposition reasoned unlikely long-held social belief defendants commit criminal attributable disadvantaged less culpable than excuse. "there reason doubt similarly post-crime good prison." 3d, 1212. cited precedent supposition. 18 unlike misstated rejecting misstatement, relying instead admonition counsel's two differences, Boyde. 1216. misled cases otherwise. II 19 our supra, 405; Early Packer, 537 3, (2002) (per curiam). Visciotti, 19, 24-25 20 correct identify starting point challenge issue here, (k). does limit jury's extenuating solely 382. holding, expressly suggestion precluded pertaining concern itself. including held: "The [factor (k)] not, petitioner seems suggest, `any crime.' includes character." Ibid. (emphasis original). 22 1070, 1211-1212. 23 think After all, Indeed, accept occurred reach surprising remorse never serve lessen But remorse, definition only experienced crime's commission, something commonly thought culpability. B 24 That leaves defend grounds least conclude shall explain, reasonably accepted narrow assumption incorrect, 25 language noted outset: 26 "We proper inquiry challenged way prevents constitutionally relevant evidence.... Jurors sit solitary isolation booths parsing subtle shades meaning lawyers might. Differences among thrashed out deliberative process, commonsense understanding taken place prevail over technical hairsplitting." 380-381 (footnote 27 Unlike here opposed conduct. Because sets framework structure analysis premises controlled dictate outcome refutes unreasonable. mistaken approach appears prominently three points phase. First, chambers outside presence (whether postcrime) beyond ambit Second, statement Third, mitigation. mandates considered. And trial, line prosecutorial put reach. 29 came witnesses, spanning days testimony without single objection prosecution relevance. recognized, served virtually purpose all. recognized much, arguing "[t]he [of the] punishment imposed. Everything relates directly that." 88. entitled consideration, "all [would be] applicable, why didn't objections relevance?" given opportunity rebut 30 For part, devoted attention disputing sincerity stating "everybody get religion jail facing penalty" "[s]tate full people are jail." 74. Later, intimated timing suspect, "he becomes newborn Christian, he's custody" gets caught." surmised, exercise pointless 31 Along lines, characterized being substantial discounting importance compared aggravating factors. said: 32 simplicity outweigh mitigating, vote penalty. How up? showing violence ..., up against really nothing except [the] Christianity fact old. This close. You haven't mitigate done. If wanted distribute thousand 900 go [the victim], [defense counsel] breakdown facts." 76. 33 "evidence" four separate occasions. 68, 70, 73. context, neither credible sufficient 34 To sure, advocated party accepts correct. There is, indication bad faith, suggest first time exposed already entirety immediately characterization, noting side bar "argue either way," "the both You've it's placed perspective." 35 judge, course, advised evidence's persuasive force responsible responsibility abdicated counsel. face failure instant curative find their left judicial direction. began deliberations appropriate, instructed received "during hereafter instructed," id., 94, thereafter anything. which, terms directs 36 Testimony about altogether insignificant brutality crimes, offenses, proclivity women. "`relevant erroneously incorrectly,'" Lockyer Andrade, 63, 76 (2003) (quoting 411), basis further "objectively unreasonable," mentioned assumption, error judgment 37 ordered. 38 CHIEF Notes: Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson Criminal Justice Legal Foundation amicus curiae reversal. 39 whom THOMAS joins, concurring. 40 join correctly holds "contrary to" "an of" cases. circumscribed adhere my limiting discretion violate Amendment. Walton Arizona, 497 639, 673 (1990) (SCALIA, judgment). 41 42 Congress' defer conclusions judges makes critical difference. Were hold penalty-phase violated Constitution requires sentencing juries See, e. Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 319 (1989). "reasonable likelihood" interpreted 8.84.1(k) 1979), "in prevent[ed]" "constitutionally relevant" namely, 380 (1990). 43 repeatedly 154-155, 159-160 (SOUTER, dissenting). Moreover, record, leaving impression says must. ante, 146 (majority opinion); 159-160. Finally, focuses reduces moral culpability offense. obviously n. (suggesting distinction evidence). these reasons, barred reached conclusion. 44 Nonetheless, present, must leave believes reasons discusses, say fails test. opinion. 45 GINSBURG join, dissenting. 46 From long Fourteenth Amendments able defendant offers effectively negated principle rehabilitation. utterly failed misstatements honor duty accurate legitimate otherwise, settled substantially injurious effect. correct, respectfully dissent. 47 At homicide, plenary right present going aspect offense, justify 302 (1989); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104 (1982); 586 (1978), Skipper South Carolina, 476 1, 4-5 (1986). equally explicit sentencer refuse giving whatever merit. 318-320; 113-114. 48 tried, California's satisfy obligation provide developments commission Trial courts generally bound charge legislatively adopted pattern described subjects aggravation "factors." ran gamut age mind qualified end: "`(k) [a]ny crime.'" 373-374, (1990); 49 provision, known subject extensive favorable struggling great childhood disadvantages. 381-383. understood open possibly question crime" adequately conveyed idea circumstance, limited 50 laid down standard: "whether 380. mere possibility mistook "need establish impermissibly inhibited instruction." majority ambiguity kept 383-385. 51 tied specifics crime; youth considered, example, along activity record. 383. was, moreover, natural hardships, society disadvantages life. 5. highly implausible ignore generating 400 pages transcript. 383-384. "`all trial,'" 383 deleted), claimed relevant, 385. Rather, assumed weighing minimal relation circumstances." 52 version instructions, Both nature contrasted sharply counterparts significant respect differed heard. 53 stretched days, behalf parts half days. 15-54. session, minister congregation's missions director, crimes "commitment Lord" sincere, 18, 23; demonstrated 18; manifested new faith study, writing, spiritual help fellow inmates, 22-29. remaining available, excused "a short day." 31. 54 Following weekend break, six appeared former inmates frequently discussions prisoners, exerted very influence" others, 34, "always tr[ied] out," 39. 32-44. fifth witness, deputy sheriff jail, corroborated testimony, 45-48, glad influence occasionally informed authorities developing problems, 49. mother seen change incarceration sincere. 52-54. Thus, entirely rehabilitation usefulness; presentation produced transcript pages. 55 sent next day, meeting charge, decided point, expressed exclude shown "have don't itself...." 55. readily reading. responded exclusion maintained "any ambiguity" 57, legislature meant explicitly, 58. 56 (including conversion) alter hesitant depart statutory text. 58, 61. Instead, free [that] condition "`k' encompassing want added," 60, lobbied rebuffed: 57 "[Defense counsel]: My agree that's know. 58 Court: you.... I'm deny [your request], stated." 59 brought charge. got jury: 60 "`K' lessens What mean? me means some okay? factor[s] offense somehow operates reduce did. doesn't refer later. That's particularly important born Christianity." 61 lawyer interrupted, approached bench, hearing, mistrial ground "completely contrary" previously replied wrong 69, resolve matter, saying "you return 62 exactly off, proffered deliberations: 63 "Referring talking about, you've helped module deputies custody. 64 seem logically committed. 65 will tell becoming place, severe happen refers operation 66 "What am getting at, past few jailhouse win sympathy, trial." 67 recounted penalty, turned conversion, questioned sincerity, warrant weighed Throughout discussion, authorizes reminded "heard factors." again: spend much [religion] applicable comes eleven "You done." 68 factor, sitting fence, himself, "section preclude It's catch-all ph[r]ase. include, exclude, evidence," length lot keep alive, awful reasons. about." 92. 69 instructions: 70 "In defendant, instructed. consider, [including] [which says] crime.... 71 "After having counsel, 72 "If circumstances, 73 "However, confinement parole." 94-96. 74 verdict. III 75 process respected plain every step reliance legislature. undisputed closest addressing postoffense colloquy demonstrate inadequacy explain seriousness group laypersons intelligible controlling calls "gravity crime," notion joint product intent, act, consequence: intentionally shooting police officer heart worse knocking pedestrian careless skateboarding. coherent say, evaluating include experiences affected development, 381-382; explained, sits judgment, early hardships turn bad, stretch itself subsequent experience. criminal's affecting skepticism addressed issues bearing sentence: executing realized awfulness done, practical protecting others future taking transformed. e.g., 4-5. experience explanation unnatural events earlier 77 Indications fact, way. spoke "circumstance offense." opinion), indeed, shared judiciary; inadequate require types 1983, discussion Eddings, adorned inform `aspect record proffers death.'" Easley, Cal.3d 858, 878, 671 P.2d 813, 826, (alterations And, down, Legislature amended "`[a]ny [and sympathetic [that offers] trial...].'" 374, 8.85(k) (5th 1988) original)). Without amendment, called personal development wake odds common attitudes English language. 78 consisted statements telling legally relevant: 79 80 81 rested perfectly fair reading effect, absence mitigating. objected. let respective probative value, himself refused address essential constitutional specifically One suppose spot, forcing misleading treat weight saw fit. elementary state, bears ultimate lay Carter Kentucky, 450 288, 302-303 (1981); Bollenbach States, 326 607, 612-614 (1946); Quercia 289 466, 469 (1933); Sparf 156 51, 102 (1895); Roberge, 979, 988, 97, (2003); Beardslee, 806 1311, 1326 (1991). thing. cured nothing. objectionable Telling functional misstating 82 true legally, insufficient circumstances. prosecutor, minimized significance observations saying, Far "explicitly assum[ing]" proper, 385, comments, interwoven scope listener relevance 83 Nothing properly word denying distinguished confronting us disclaiming "that misrepresentations decisive jury," 384; "arguments judged made," thus anticipated one, prejudice arising misrepresentation prescience position argument: appearing urged State, referred name, "misled jurors." Tr. Oral Arg. O. 1989, 88-6613, 29. authority pass faced conceded 138 obliged however "reluctant strike own" "do figuratively throw hands." 1326. C 84 misstep distinguishes judge's testimonial did, hear. each stage collateral challenge, sense disregarded substantive ignoring putting charade. An affirming 383, today reprise affirm 1072, 1049 (1992); 144 entertained caution best good, 85 need plain: satisfied ability body genuine 320. "[p]resentation alone guarantee feel 384. reason, violations precluding accordingly Johnson, 532 782, 788, 803-804 (2001); 107, 86 thinking combination passes muster produce hardship, sentencing, ignored large chunk intuitively acceptable contrast, generated pages, dramatic self-reformation caution. While ever irrelevant, plenty precluded: emphatically count extenuate uncorrected. 87 More contrasts difference judges. `shall case.'" added majority). Reasonable hardly felt constrained phase." 383-384 supplied 88 Here, different, variant permitted legislature's Here rather, instructed." "Hereafter," applying enumerated focus corrected judge. 89 upshot this. excluded consideration. presumably fallen exception eminently plausible owing matter naturally scrutinize discount unpersuasive, skip scrutiny beside point. 90 closer viewed suggests, asks foreclosing show "more not" misunderstood. Accordingly, offers, claim. Identifying "most likely" 147 falls negating alternative story 91 oft-repeated rest assumptions. loose "directs culpability," nevertheless supply (even forgo tells "to character," 382 deleted). purport changes fundamental views. broadening sanction misreading decision. mistake unfortunately reverberate obscures necessarily inexact error. Cf. 782 (finding confusing created submitted relevance, care "`any inappropriate,'" 790, IV 92 By admission "misstatement" "misled" jury. Despite repeat. qualification referring branded irrelevant straightforward 93 stood denied presumption innocence; affirmatively suggested anyone misled? room consider. step, affirmance misapplication standard, die consequence, surely injurious, Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619, 638 (1993), possible harmless

Category: 0