Document: 532 U.S. 36121 S.Ct. 1263149 L.Ed.2d 178 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.WESLEY AARON SHAFER, Jr., PETITIONERv.SOUTH CAROLINA No. 00-5250. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued January 9, 2001 Decided March 20, Syllabus Under recent amendments South Carolina law, capital jurors face two questions at sentencing phase trial. They decide first whether State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt existence statutory aggravating circumstance. If jury fails agree unanimously on presence aggravator, it cannot make recommendation. In event, trial judge charged with defendant either life imprisonment mandatory minimum 30-year prison term. If, hand, finds then recommends one potential sentences-death without possibility parole. No option available jury. A found petitioner Shafer guilty murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy. During trial's phase, Shafer's counsel prosecutor disagreed application Simmons v. Carolina, 512 154, this case. held where defendant's future dangerousness issue, only alternative death parole, due process requires informed parole ineligibility. maintained required instruct under law sentence carries no The prosecutor, opposition, urged instruction was because did not plan argue would danger future. replied had fact put issue by introducing evidence postarrest assault jail rules violations. refused charge ineligibility, stating been argued. also denied leave read his closing argument lines from controlling statute plainly After prosecution's argument, renewed plea for ground placed repeating statements an alarmed witness crime scene accomplices "might come back." again request. Quoting passage relevant but full text, twice told "life means until defendant." its deliberations, asked whether, what circumstances, someone convicted murder could become eligible responded "[p]arole eligibility ineligibility your consideration." factor while attempting recommended penalty, which imposed. affirmed. Without considering prosecutor's evidentiary submissions court generally inapplicable State's "new scheme." triggered, said, unless legally death. Currently, observed, when begins three sentences available: (1) death, (2) (3) sentence. Since than exists, concluded, longer constrains Carolina. Held: 1. incorrectly interpreted declared case Carolina's current scheme. That court's reasoning might persuasive if jury's discretion actually encompassed choices identified: But, how new scheme works. now governing proceedings, circumstance, must recommend sentence, limited When makes threshold determination aggravator tightly circumscribed factual inquiry, none Simmons' concerns yet arise. At stage, there "misunderstanding[s]" avoid, "false choice[s]" guard against. See Simmons, U.S., 161 (plurality opinion). jury, as circumstance factfinder, exercises itself. found, takes over sole authority impose so heavily relied upon Court. It endeavors moral judgment penalty critical. Correspondingly, stage comes into play, provides third choice, minimum, just Ramdass Angelone, 530 156, 169. Thus, whenever proceeding scheme, Pp. 10-14. 2. grounds support judge's refusal give unavailing. 14-17. (a) properly instructions defense counsel's own unpersuasive. To contention, sets out pleas that, spared, he will die after spending natural there, well passages reiterating defendant. Displacement longstanding practice availability remains relatively development, common sense indicates many know U. S, 177-178 (O'Connor, J., concurring judgment). Indeed, years trial, categorically preclude defendants sentenced imprisonment. Most contradicting written request further question left about failure gain clear understanding means. Cf., e.g., id., 178. comprehension hardly aided final declaring consideration. nothing ensure misled have taken mean some unstated reason, should blind fact. E.g., 170 although permit release state reality conveyed arguments allowed make. 14-16. (b) contention never argued pose society presents ripe Court's resolution. Court, rule broadly governs State, apparently assumed, arguendo, shown proceeding. Because home open attention disposition. 16-17. 340 S. 291, 531 E. 2d 524, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO SOUTH Ginsburg, delivered Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, Thomas, filed dissenting opinions. Justice Ginsburg Opinion 1 right inform event him 154 (1994), entitles "to [his] counsel." 165 (2000) opinion) (describing premise plurality we confront involves returned instructed both offender," 297, 527 (2000). misread our precedent We hold therefore reverse judgment. 2 * April 1997, course attempted robbery Union County, then-18-year-old Wesley Aaron Shafer, shot killed convenience store cashier. grand indicted charges criminal App. 2-4. Prior notified seek murder. 4-5. pursuit, present "prior bad acts," "propensity [future] violence unlawful conduct." 6, 8. 3 juries cases consider guilt separate proceedings. Code Ann. 16-3-20(A), (B) (2000 Cum. Supp.). initial (guilt phase) proceeding, all charges. Governing instructs: "[T]he ... shall hear additional extenuation, mitigation, aggravation punishment. . defendant, permitted against imposed." 16-3-20(B). 4 effective 1, 1996, sentencing. "it recommendation." 16-3-20(C). judge," "shall term thirty years." Ibid.; see (B). 5 case, introduced record, past aggressive conduct, probation violations, misbehavior prison. committed deadly weapon. 16-3-20(C)(a)(1)(d). presented abusive childhood mental problems. 6 Near completion parties' presentations, conducted camera hearing instructions. process, decision entitled "the point anybody future, nor [that] ." 161. replied: "The introduce dangerousness, say going [thereby avoid] law... [evidence a] post arrest assault, [and] violations you jailer [Shafer] [the jailer], dangerousness." 162. Ruling matter charged," stated: "I find [was] argued[;] it's [in closing], different." 164. 7 Unsuccessful effort sought permission impart information himself. He statute, 164-165.1 accord motion prevent arguing their anything effect get prison," 161, statute's text 165. 8 "a charge." 188. referred earlier urged, addition, during words scene: "[T]hey [Shafer accomplices] back, they "admit[ted he] concern [as State's] crossed line," end "that close, not." 191-192. Instructing explained: 9 "If do set forth form [murder commission robbery], need go further. 10 continue deliberations. 11 "Once signed aggravated deliberate, determine sentence[d] death." 202. 12 quoting 16-3- 20(A), 201; 209. line prior rulings, concluding portion charge, send me way recommendation imposes 215. once more "objection language [on ineligibility] being 221, overruled objection, 222. 13 Three hours twenty-five minutes sent note containing questions: 14 "1) Is remote chance elig[i]ble parole? 15 "2) conditions elig[i]ble." 253. 16 following 16-3-20(A): 17 seeks made, For purposes section, 'life imprisonment' offender. person pursuant section community supervision, early program, receive work credits, education good conduct credits reduce section." 226 (emphasis added). 18 partially quoted 16-3-20 (above italics), omitted provision's boldface), confused eligibility. 226. adhered position eligibility." 223. insisted, "instruct reaching decision, im- prisonment understood ordinary plain meaning." 223-224. 19 decided "not ineligibility," 229, instruct: "Your consideration restricted recommend. I will, judge, Section Laws purpose Parole 236. 20 take off statement "parole considered jury]," argued, "impl[ies] available." 236; 239 (Shafer's reiterated: "[I]f tell them can't certainly implies eligible."). 21 Following counsels' arguments, nearly hour tendered questions, instructed: 22 "Section applies we're in, states quote, offender, quote. 23 "Parole 240. 24 80 later. penalty. 242-243. polled, each member indicated her assent finding 243-248. Defense polled specific eligibility, belief therein, gave rise verdict," "whether juror number 233 who works expressed personal knowledge deliberation outside given law." 248. requests imposed 248, 251.2 25 appealed Noting acknowledged "[w]hen places ineligible." 297-298, 528 authorized sentences, year sentence." C., 298, 2d, (citing Starnes, 312, 907 (decided same day Shafer)).3 26 warranted serves sentencer, i.e., 528. differently. view, "Simmons ineligible Ibid. original) judgment)). "At time [Shafer's] began deliberations," "three were available"; "[s]ince these alternatives parole," inapplicable." 299, 27 Chief Finney dissented. overriding principle drawn [Simmons]," stated, "is violated speculative misunderstanding uncorrected." Id., 310, 534. Due mandates reversal here, inquiry prompted misleading response suggested possibility." Moreover, added, inquires n. 2, 534, even simply policy, majority suggests [it is], why adopt policy gives simpl[e] truth: parole." 311, 28 granted certiorari, 1306 (2000), regime. conclude misinterpreted II 29 consistently status.4 confronted Simmons. effect, 16-3-20(A) 24-21-610 (Supp. 1993), imprisonment, supra, 8-9, 3. however, convictions crimes violence. 24-21-640; 156 opinion); 176 asked: "Does imposition carry parole?" 160 Over "Do verdict]. proper receiving court, unsuccessfully overturn appeal 160-161. 30 Mindful "longstanding availability," 177 J.), recognized chose between misled. Given definition imprisonment" "reasonably believed [Simmons] released executed." J.). comport held, "secur[e] ground, least part, [defendant's] concealing true meaning [only] noncapital alternative, namely, meant 162 J.) ("Where puts jury-by instruction-that ineligible."). 31 As "inapplicable [State's] scheme," triggered 2) 3) "Since [is] 32 identified. 2-3. governing, does permissible relevance. such alone becomes sentencer. 16-3-20(C) Only And law: 33 correct extent: indeed possible juries, discrete sequential functions. Initially, serve factfinders determining alleged exists. Once passed, exercise punishment ought critical difference "[a] fact, incident, detail occurrence," doubt. 203. Turning considerations "fairness mercy," "moral culpability." 204. free reason Mr. rather 34 sum, determines There 12. Ramdass, 169 (Simmons "as legal matter, decides appropriate prison." added)).5 III 35 offers instruction. First, argues argument. Second, contends society. turn those arguments. 36 "Even triggered," urges, defense's fulfilled requirements Simmons." Brief Respondent 38. "die prison" "spend[ing] there." 39. Next, recites 40. 37 note, satisfied persuasive. availability" "common tells us situation illustrative. Until noted, 3, 10-11. 38 instruction, asking: "Is 253; cf. ("that felt compelled ask shows life-sentenced prison").6 39 instruction: fact." 534 (Finney, dissenting) ("[T]he possibility."); Kelly, 25226, WL 21321, *13 (S. Jan. 8, 2001) (Pleicones, part) ("Without aggravators reduced method release, likely speculate unnecessarily based 'fear reason.' " (quoting Yarbrough Commonwealth, 258 Va. 347, 369, 519 602, 613 (1999))). 40 "parole, imprisonment," Supp.) (set 4, 1); B 41 Ultimately, maintains "[t]he prosecution dangerousness," predicate here. 42. 42 differed place "at issue." formally dangerousness. introduces showing avoid saying calling another name. 161-162. 43 recounted, determined acknowledged, point, close crossing line. 3-4, 5. 8-9; *6 (recognizing logical inference evidence" "injected through argument"). 44 45 reasons reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 46 ordered. NOTES: reads: "A pleads punished life, years. subsections (C), section. Governor commutes provisions Article IV Constitution 1895, commutee subsection." consecutive terms 251-252. "new" changed punishments conviction result read: service twenty years; provided, specifically , 1993). What provision stating: board grant prisoner serving second subsequent conviction, violent 24-21-640. latter amended; apply Shafer. Here, wholesale elimination prison, Supp.), described 2-3, States-Pennsylvania Virginia others-that "ha[d] life-without-parole murderers refuse[d] th[at] 168, abandoned practice. 374, 616 (1999) ("[W]e penalty-determination proffer submitting asks 'imprisonment life' parole.' ").5 Tellingly, oral factor, reported recommendation, required. Tr. Oral Arg. 32. significant Nor Thomas' dissent plausibly urge distinction. post, hypothesized bifurcated equally actual uninterrupted Animating convey "left room speculation jury." Post, record scarcely supports, share, conviction. Cf. 310-311, ("the response" reveal "simpl[e] truth"). 47 dissenting. 48 While concede today's extension am attached logic Constitution, whose Process Clause embodiment common-law tradition, federal courts promulgate wise national procedure. 49 pointed tradition contain special jury-instruction cases. Today's page "whole chapter" improvised 'death-is-different' jurisprudence" began. 185 (Scalia, dissenting). (or fourth fifth) (logical-enough) novel requirement inquire Providing idea (though sometimes harm help case)-and it. Petitioner. not. limit facts. 50 51 better or, believe, worse, majority's next step (1994). Now, choice impossibility released. However, accepting learn possibility, believe sufficient respectfully dissent. 52 concerned reasonably Therefore, dangerousness-that sexually assaulted elderly women, fellow inmates, 157 opinion)-would effective. several instructions, including explain 'he w[ould] penitentiary balance life.' 160. rejected instead ambiguously according 'plain meaning,' "nothing dispel particular defines imprisonment.' 169-170. 53 contrast, repeatedly explained defendant.' 201. defined 'incarceration death,' 209, verdict 'We, imprisoned 213-214. Emphasizing very received 192 (" 'The execute prison' "); 194 'putting old dead' 'you can 198 'When [him] he's home... I'm asking smallest amount mercy man, child spend rest "). 54 explanations means, infer regarding all. 'convicted murder,' 239-240 '[I]s 240 '[U]nder [for parole]' "), years' greater. thought him, correct. sure, options But precisely answers appropriate. "life" option, added '[p]arole consideration.' 55 appears develop precise offered right. role micromanage model decline interfere matters leaves States.

Category: 0