Document: 455 U.S. 104 102 S.Ct. 869 71 L.Ed.2d 1 Monty Lee EDDINGS, Petitioner,v.OKLAHOMA. No. 80-5727. Argued Nov. 2, 1981. Decided Jan. 19, 1982. Syllabus Petitioner was convicted in an Oklahoma trial court of first-degree murder for killing a police officer and sentenced to death. At the time offense petitioner 16 years old, but he tried as adult. The death penalty statute provides that sentencing proceeding evidence may be presented "any mitigating circumstances" or any certain enumerated aggravating circumstances. hearing, State alleged circumstances, petitioner, mitigation, substantial turbulent family history, beatings by harsh father, serious emotional disturbance. In imposing sentence, judge found had proved each But refused, matter law, consider mitigation circumstances petitioner's unhappy upbringing disturbance, only circumstance youth, which held insufficient outweigh Court Criminal Appeals affirmed. Held : sentence must vacated it imposed without "the type individualized consideration factors . required Eighth Fourteenth Amendments capital cases," Lockett v. Ohio, 438 586, 606, 98 2954, 2965, 57 973. Pp. 110-116. (a) "[T]he require sentencer not precluded from considering, factor, aspect defendant's character record defendant proffers basis less than death." supra, at 604, 2964. This rule follows requirement punishment fairly with reasonable consistency all, recognizes produced ignoring individual differences is false consistency. 110-112. (b) limitation placed courts below upon they would violated above rule. Just preclude considering neither refuse consider, relevant evidence. reviewing determine weight given give no excluding their consideration. Here, difficult history disturbance offered hearing should have been duly considered sentencing. 112-116. 616 P.2d 1159, reversed part remanded. Jay C. Baker, Tulsa, Okl., petitioner. David W. Lee, City, respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. Eddings Because this 973 (1978) (opinion BURGER, J.), we reverse. 2 * On April 4, 1977, Eddings, 16-year-old several younger companions ran away Missouri homes. They traveled car owned Eddings' brother, drove destination purpose southwesterly direction eventually reaching Turnpike. shotgun rifles taken his father. After momentarily lost control car, signalled pull over Officer Crabtree Highway Patrol. did so, when approached stuck loaded out window fired, officer. 3 juvenile, moved him certified stand Finding there prosecutive merit complaint amenable rehabilitation within juvenile system, granted motion. ruling affirmed on appeal. re M.E., 584 1340 (Okla.Crim.App.), cert. denied sub nom. Oklahoma, 436 921, 2271, 56 763 (1978). then charged first degree, District Creek County guilty plea nolo contendere. 4 pertinent part: 5 "Upon conviction guilt shall conduct separate whether life imprisonment. proceeding, act." Okla.Stat., Tit. 21, § 701.10 (1980) (emphasis added). 6 Section 701.12 lists seven circumstances; nowhere defines what meant circumstances." 7 three statute: especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, crime committed avoiding preventing lawful arrest, probability commit criminal acts violence constitute continuing threat society. §§ 701.12(4), (5), (7). 8 troubled youth. testimony supervising Juvenile indicated raised proper guidance. His parents were divorced until 14 lived mother rules supervision. App. 109. There suggestion alcoholic possibly prostitute. Id., 110-111. By longer could controlled, sent live father boy. Attempts reason talk gave way physical punishment. testified frightened bitter, overreacted used excessive punishment: "Mr. thing thought effectful boy actual punishment, violence—hitting strap something like this."1 121. 9 Testimony other witnesses emotionally disturbed general crime, mental development level age. 134, 149, 173. A state psychologist stated sociopathic antisocial personality approximately 30% youths suffering such disorder grew aged. 137 139. sociologist specializing offenders treatable. 149. psychiatrist rehabilitated intensive therapy 15- 20-year period. 181. He further "did trigger, kill someone, I don't even think knew doing it."2 suggested that, if treated, pose 180-181. 10 conclusion all evidence, weighed beyond doubt.3 Turning youth factor great weight: "I very Defendant particular committed. Should fail do this, carrying my duty." 188-189. disturbance: cannot persuaded entirely fact sixteen old heinous Nor can following opinion, young man's violent background." 189 finding present, 11 1159 (1980). It present.4 recited some detail, end agreed properly circumstance: 12 "[Eddings] also argues murder. stresses saying severe psychological disorders, actuality inevitable product raised. doubt has disorder. tends show difference between right wrong pulled test responsibility State. For same reason, useful explaining why behaved did, does excuse behavior." 1170 (citation omitted). II 13 (1978), Chief writing plurality, apply today:5 "[W]e conclude S.Ct., 2964 original). 15 Recognizing "that imposition public authority profoundly different penalties," plurality free "independent aspects proffered mitigation. ." 605, 2965. Ohio permitted invalid. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE explained, considerable reflecting law's effort develop system once consistent principled humane sensible uniqueness individual. Since early days common legal struggled accommodate these twin objectives. Thus, law began treating homicides offenses, mandatory Later allowed exceptions, through exclusion those entitled claim benefit clergy limiting murders "malice prepensed." country attempted soften rigor sentences inherited England, grading into degrees degree committing use absolute discretion jury. our decision Furman Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 (1972), so far frequently become arbitrary capricious. 17 Beginning Furman, provide standards constitutional serve both goals measured, application fairness accused. Gregg 428 153, 96 2909, 49 859 (1976), principal danger capricious met "by carefully drafted ensures adequate information guidance." 195, 2935. its jury find one listed statute, circumstances," Georgia confined directed jury's attention characteristics person who crime. 197, 2936.6 18 Similarly, Woodson North Carolina, 280, 2978, 944 permissible response problem discretion. shown, approach succeed while Amendment due: fundamental respect humanity underlying requires offender constitutionally indispensable process inflicting 304, 2991.7 See Roberts (Harry) Louisiana, 431 633, 97 1993, 52 637 (1977); (Stanislaus) 325, 3001, 974 (1976). 19 followed earlier decisions Court's insistence fairly, consistency, all. requiring focus "on crime," 2936, "justice account together propensities offender." Pennsylvania Ashe, 302 51, 55, 58 59, 60, 82 L.Ed. 43 (1937). holding cases III 20 We now case. "in law," "consider 189. dispute "violent background" referring history.8 From statement clear evaluate wanting fact; rather unable 21 took approach. because tend responsibility. Thus conceded "personality disorder," cast aside "he responsibility." P.2d, 1170. "useful explaining" behavior, "excuse" behavior. statements appears support liability. 22 limitations Lockett.9 instance, instructed disregard behalf. sentencer, review, consideration.10 23 Evidence typically introduced defendants McGautha California, 402 183, 187-188, 193, 91 1454, 1457, 1460, 28 711 (1971). cases, little weight. particularly relevant. 24 recognized factor. more chronological fact. condition most susceptible influence damage.11 Our replete laws judicial recognition minors, years, generally are mature responsible adults.12 Particularly "during formative childhood adolescence, minors often lack experience, perspective, judgment" expected adults. Bellotti Baird, 443 622, 635, 99 3035, 3044, 61 797 (1979). 25 Even normal customarily lacks maturity case, 16-year-old; deprived care, concern, paternal children deserve. contrary, disputed problems, neglectful, sometimes violent, background. addition, All suggest absence murder, deliberately Rather, say just age minor itself weight, background youthful 26 unaware extent engage increasingly crime.13 where minor. concerned here manner ultimate penalty: child's immaturity. 27 remand, weigh against them. Accordingly, judgment sustains penalty, case remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. So ordered. 29 BRENNAN, concurring. 30 join without, however, departing view cruel unusual prohibited Amendments, 227, 2950, (1976) (dissenting opinion). 31 O'CONNOR, 32 write separately address fully reasons light concerning personal history.* "qualitatively different" prison sentences, 305, 2991, Stewart, POWELL, STEVENS, JJ.),this gone extraordinary measures ensure prisoner executed afforded will guarantee, much humanly possible, whim, passion, prejudice, mistake. Surely, One example wrote: 34 "There perfect procedure deciding governmental impose prevents giving independent creates risk spite call penalty. When choice death, unacceptable incompatible commands Amendments." 2965 J.). 35 order erroneously imposed, concluded rarest kind original) (footnote 36 present course, permits circumstance. Nonetheless, (which occurred about month before decided), remarked Although reasonably argue extemporaneous remarks significance, believe reasoning compels remand "risk penalty." U.S., 37 disagree dissent remanding purpose. though opportunity believed sentence. event, speculate actually them offset court's treatment "purely semantics," dissent. us remove legitimate ambiguity court. 38 correct concluding reflects Justices sat judge. post, 127. I, read either altering opinions establishing constitutionality issue Constitution 16. listing detail surrounding life, sought emphasize variety lesser 39 whom WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 40 important outset remember—as not—the narrow question certiorari. care limit prohibit 1977 offense; review questions petition certiorari denied. 450 1040, 101 1756, 68 237 (1981). Yet today goes sought—and granted—to decide point brief nor certiorari.1 Relying "11th-hour" claim, strains construct plausible theory mandate relief granted. 41 under "narrowly limit[ed] sentencer's factors." 589, 2956. issue, Rev.Code 2929.03-2929.04(B) (1975), Lockett's "aggravated specifications,"2 unless (1) victim induced facilitated offense, (2) unlikely she 'was duress, coercion, strong provocation,' (3) 'primarily [Lockett's] psychosis deficiency.' " 593-594, 2958-59. plain although felony homicide played relatively role robbery resulted perpetrated hand another. previously major offenses; report described her "prognosis rehabilitation" "favorable." 594, 2959. However, since acted suffer "psychosis," "mentally deficient," 'no alternative, [he] like[d] not' Ibid. 42 "Eighth therefore flawed, permit circumstances—such comparatively intent victim, 606-608, 2965-66. not, undertake dictate ascribe various might categorized "mitigating," substitute cases. contrast Lockett, provides: 44 "In 45 "[u]nless least statutory act [found exist doubt] outweighed imposed." 701.11. 46 provision, instructs State.3 47 thus contains provisions virtually identical cited approval examples legislation highlighted statute's "constitutional infirmities." 606-607, 2965-2966. Indeed, contend Lockett. Moreover, mandated "substantial [sentencing] youth." Ante, 107.4 48 attempt make violation relies single bench close hearing. discussing aggravated nature noting "given committed," said "be statement, concludes "it fact, evidence." 113. simply characterization judge's action. 50 parsing oral ignores delivering extemporaneously bench, frame utterance specificity precision written statute. Extemporaneous courtroom models clarity. spent listening probation health professionals history—an obviously meaningless exercise if, asserts, barred "as law" "considering" testimony. examined isolation, best ambiguous;5 easily unfortunate childhood, sufficient revealed. Certainly nothing making determination. 51 independently "aggravating" "mitigating" background, after discussion "family liability." 113.6 anything sufficiently tip scales, including immediately killing.7 assuredly suggests, hold "evidence relevant," see ibid.; indeed, irrelevant, paragraphs summarizing it. offers explanation assumption bound unstated principle "consider" To sure, labeled "mitigating me, purely semantics associated rational belief mitigation" rise persuasiveness circumstance." contrast, seems potentially factor"—regardless weight; insubstantiality weighing stands for, scant result reached. clearly courts—a Court—to accord problems balanced potential future dangerousness.8 53 never painful duties pass one. comes every "bite bullet." 54 Whether remains seen, already introduce whatever Two shown makes authority, see, e.g., ante, 115-116. am sure done so. authorize "appropriate"; Amendment. stops short suggesting proscription last analysis, forced [which] [petitioner's evidence] them." 117. 55 sense sole certiorari, affirm judgment. shooting said: shot go back live." 93. own mind stepfather—a policeman married period seven. stated: facts arrested development, year seeking revenge rebellion; act—he it." 172. "heinous, cruel" "designed inflict high pain utter indifference rights Patrolman Crabtree." 187. Second, "committed arrest prosecution." 187-188. indicate wish returned stopping officer's arrest. Finally, posed day county jail, told two officers "if loose shoot" 77. another time, refused turn off cell, became angry threatened officer: "Now you people, I'll get too out." 103. Based "spontaneous utterances," id., 188, likelihood again released. understand performance 636, 1995, (1977). understanding conformed certainty Godfrey 446 420, 100 1759, 64 398 n. 3, supra. reach whether—in contemporary standards—the forbids execution offense. Cf. Bell 637, 2977, 1010 focused crime: Are special mitigate (e.g., cooperation police, crime)." 2936. "A accords significance facets excludes fixing possibility compassionate stemming diverse frailties humankind. treats persons designated uniquely human beings. 2991. Brief Respondent ("the inference drawn circumstance"); Tr. Oral Arg. [T]he assume [that Eddings] subject slapping around beating father") (argument respondent). argued specifically erred refusing rejecting ought balance. irrelevant inquiry excessiveness need argument comprises short, spoke name, us. jurisdiction depend citation book verse. See, New York ex rel. Bryant Zimmerman, 278 63, 67, 61, 73 184 (1928). expressly it, responded argument. 64-67; 55-57. dissenting JUSTICE, 120, 1, states issue. is, rehearing, length. Petition Re-Hearing Supporting C-78-325, p. ("This Court, interpretation effectively limited scope renders unconstitutional"). petition, stating full "fully advised premises." Rule 1.18, Rules (court entertain new arguments rehearing). Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 476, 95 1029, 1036, 328 (1975). Wood 261, 265, 5, 1097, 1100, 67 220 (1981); Beck Alabama, 447 625, 631, 6, 2382, 2386, 65 392 (1980); Vachon Hampshire, 414 478, 479, 94 664, 665, 666 (1974). note listen. "Adolescents everywhere, walk dangerous themselves others." President's Commission Law Enforcement Administration Justice, Task Force Report: Delinquency Youth Crime (1967). "[A]dolescents, middle teen vulnerable, impulsive, self-disciplined Crimes harmful victims older persons, deserve adolescents capacity long-range terms exclusively offender's fault; offenses represent failure family, school, social share America's Twentieth Century Fund Sentencing Policy Toward Young Offenders, Confronting Frankfurter stated, "[c]hildren place reflect." May Anderson, 345 528, 536, 840, 844, 1221 (1953) (concurring And indeed reflect place. Every provision offenders. Gault, 387 14, 87 1428, 1436, 527 National Advisory Committee Standards Goals, Report Prevention Despite JUSTICE's below, precedent merits 1100 (1981), "Even considers conflict-of-interest technically ample interests justice. U.S.C. 2106 (authorizing 'require circumstances')." risks erroneous duty resentencing. struggles demonstrate us." 113-114, 9. "Lockett claim" somehow inherent assertion "excessive." obvious failed addresses, "fairly presented" "opportunity controlling principles bearing [his] claim." Picard Connor, 404 270, 275-277, 509, 512-13, concedes much, admitting error appeal Appeals. 64. showed waited "get-away" robbed store; during robbery, proprietor fatally wounded. "specifications" "aggravating circumstances": escaping detection, apprehension, trial, punishment" robbery; committing, attempting commit, fleeing robbery." 2929.04(A) ironic filed Appeals, asserted scheme deficient, "[t]he statutorily defined immaterial worth overstates oversimplifies example, twice characterizes indicating "mental age." 107, 116. Dr. Dietsche, psychologist, extrapolate Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale age" months; "no meaning" concepts break down fourteen went state: "My [Eddings] intelligence adult." 134-136 Describing interview awaiting charges, Rettig, sociologist, "responses appeared me age"; "qualif[ied]" answer, "under deal constraint atmosphere saw him." Gagliano, psychiatrist, opined one-hour interview—during attorney allow questioning status" shooting, 177—that rebellion" stepfather, policeman. 172-173. Gagliano willing categorically, interview, reference results testing 174, "preordained" divorced, five. 179-180. sort "determinist" rejected overwhelming majority psychiatrists. "problems fighting" "Assault bodily harm." 106-107. concede, probably referring, part, history. circumstance") cf. remark ambiguous. interpreted mean [the court] going juvenile's previous Missouri, extensive ."). hand, circumstance," "tend informed patrol approaching, "mother pig stop blow away." 66. necessarily unreasonable notes, "[e]vidence mitigation." 115. surprised capable brutal unprovoked disorder." "sociopathic personality," estimated 91% "of your element" antisocial. 136. Dietsche "antisocial personalities" individuals usual companions" "loyalties," "[f]requently selfish, impulsive," showing "little line responsibility" concern "for needs wants others," "hav[ing] remorse." 137-138. describes Dietsche's "approximately aged," describing study subsequently discredited. 139-141. study, "grew of" "more conartist type" "not assaultive type." recent 20% "treatable," 141; 255 initial participants successfully "literally thousands hours therapy." 142. "sociopath" connote egocentric, desires unremorseful, propensity conduct, respond well conventional psychiatric treatment—hardly significant factors. Blocker United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 48-49, nn. 11, 12, 288 F.2d 853, 860-861, (1961) (Burger, J., concurring result). While speaks "severe disturbance," 115; 116, primarily sociopath, Gagliano's fantastic speculation dissociation exemplifies proposition occurrence functions powerful impetus search explain Szasz, Psychiatry, Ethics, Law, Colum.L.Rev. 190-191 (1958).

Category: 0