Document: 537 U.S. 101 SATTAZAHNv.PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-7574. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 4, 2002. Decided January 14, 2003. Under Pennsylvania law, (1) the verdict in penalty phase capital proceedings must be death if jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating or more circumstances outweighing any circumstances, but it life imprisonment all other instances; (2) court may discharge a determines that will not agree on sentence, then enter sentence. When petitioner's penalty-phase reported to trial judge was hopelessly deadlocked 9-to-3 for imprisonment, discharged entered On appeal, Superior reversed first-degree murder conviction remanded new trial. At second trial, again sought convicted petitioner, this time imposed In affirming, found neither Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor Fourteenth Due Process barred from seeking retrial. Held: 1. There double-jeopardy bar Pennsylvania's Pp. 106-110, 113-115. (a) Where, as here, defendant who is sentenced succeeds having set aside jeopardy has terminated, so sentence connection with initial raises Stroud v. States, 251 U. S. 15. While, line cases commencing Bullington Missouri, 451 430, applies capital-sentencing "have hallmarks guilt innocence," id., 439, relevant inquiry context whether received first around, an "acquittal" based findings sufficient establish legal entitlement — i. e., government failed prove beyond reasonable doubt, Arizona Rumsey, 467 203, 211. 106-109. (b) Double-jeopardy protections were triggered when sentencing proceeding prescribed pursuant law. The made respect alleged circumstance. That result, nonresult, cannot fairly called acquittal, Neither entry by "acquittal." scheme, discretion fashion once he deadlocked, makes resolves factual matters. also finding Legislature intended statutorily required create "entitlement" even without 109-110. (c) Dictum States Scott, 437 82, 92, does support proposition double bars retrial defendant's case been fully tried its own motion enters mere prospect implicate perils against which seeks protect. 2. did Nothing § 1 Amendment indicates "life" "liberty" interest law have given petitioner proceeding's somehow immutable, "deprived" such only operation "process" invoked invalidate underlying conviction. This declines hold provides greater protection than Clause. 115-116. 563 Pa. 533, 763 A. 2d 359, affirmed. SCALIA, J., announced judgment delivered opinion Parts I, II, IV, V, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined, Part III, joined. filed concurring part judgment, post, p. 116. GINSBURG, dissenting opinion, STEVENS, SOUTER, BREYER, 118. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Robert Brett Dunham argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Anne L. Saunders John T. Adams. Iva Dougherty respondent. her brief Mark Baldwin Alisa R. Hobart. Sri Srinivasan pro hac vice amicus curiae urging affirmance. Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Chertoff, Deputy Dreeben, J. Erickson. JUSTICE SCALIA CHIEF THOMAS join.* case, we consider applicability proceedings. 2 * Sunday evening, April 12, 1987, David Allen Sattazahn his accomplice, Jeffrey Hammer, hid wooded area waiting rob Richard Boyer, manager Heidelberg Family Restaurant. carried .22-caliber Ruger semiautomatic pistol Hammer .41-caliber revolver. They accosted Boyer restaurant's parking lot closing time. guns drawn, they demanded bank deposit bag containing day's receipts. threw toward roof restaurant. Petitioner commanded retrieve bag, instead complying run away. Both fired shots, fell dead. two men grabbed fled. 3 Commonwealth prosecuted penalty. May 10, 1991, returned first-, second-, third-degree murder, various charges. accordance moved into phase. See Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, 1102(a)(1) (Purdon 1998); 42, §9711(a)(1) Supp. 2002). presented evidence statutory circumstance: commission while perpetration felony. 9711(d)(6). lack significant history prior criminal convictions age crime. §§9711(e)(1), (4). 539, 362 (2000). 4 that, proceedings: 5 "(iv) ... outweigh circumstances. cases. 6 "(v) may, discretion, further deliberation result unanimous agreement shall imprisonment." §9711(c) 7 After both sides their evidence, deliberated some 3½ hours, App. 23, after note signed foreman read: "We, are 9-3 imprisonment. Each deeply entrenched [sic] position. We do expect anyone change position." Id., 25. "under 9711(c), subparagraph 1, Roman Numeral 5, [the court] 22. judge, hung, indicated would 23-24, later did, 30-33. 8 appealed Court. concluded had erred instructing offenses charged, including murder. It accordingly Sattazahn, 428 Super. 413, 631 597 (1993). 9 remand, notice intent seek addition hearing, circumstance, felony involving use threat violence person. (This guilty pleas multiple burglaries, robbery trial.) prevent adding denied motion, affirmed denial, 73, declined review ruling, 547 742, 690 1162 (1997). death. 10 direct Pa., 551, 2d, 369. Relying earlier decision Martorano, 535 178, 634 1063 (1993), 545-551, 366-369. granted certiorari. 926 (2002). II 11 commands "[n]o person . subject same offence twice put limb." Clause, placed offense, terminates punished offense. North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 717 (1969). appeals aside, held 15 (1919). 12 Stroud, offense issue make order impose 18. 430 (1981), however, apply where innocence." 439. identified several aspects Missouri's resembled requirement prosecution certain defined facts doubt 438. Such procedure, explained, "explicitly requires determine `proved case.'" 444. Since, concluded, signifies "`the already acquitted whatever necessary sentence,'" State 445 (quoting ex rel. Westfall Mason, 594 W. 908, 922 (Mo. 1980) (Bardgett, dissenting)). 13 were, careful emphasize imposition bar. discussed obtained reversal confessed error. S., 17-18. What distinguished said, fact "there separate otherwise additional justify particular sentence." Bullington, clear trial-like phase, rather give rise protections. 446. 14 Later decisions refined Bullington's rationale. 203 (1984), during three present. court, aggravator existed, accused's favor State's cross-appeal, interpretation proceeding, produced 205-206. setting explained "[t]he principle [Rumsey's] Bullington: acquittal merits sole decisionmaker final charge." "The denying existence each seven state respondent's amounts and, such, appropriateness penalty." Ibid. (emphasis added). 16 Rumsey thus reaffirmed purposes doubt. 17 A line, Poland Arizona, 476 147 (1986), involved defendants appeal (because consideration nonrecord evidence) there insufficient court. different thought proved. retrial; imposed. 149-150. decided those implicated. ground Poland, unlike cases, "acquitted" entering 155-157. B 18 Normally, "a following `hung jury' violate Clause." Richardson 468 317, 324 (1984). contends, unique treatment afforded under 19 disagree. just discussed, touchstone here proceeding. As jury: form stated penalty; appropriately, non-result "based supra, 20 "acquittal," either. explained: 21 "`Under deadlocked. statute directs 42 §9711(c)(1)(v) (... imprisonment.) matter. Since resolve matter, default trigger upon retrial.'" 548, 367 194, 1070). 22 could argued, perhaps, creates because what should survive vacation Court, find eminently good so. simple closure might willing accept is, except issue, end unwilling retried anyway. And conservation resources leave unresolved (and place) cost resolving empaneling likelihood, repetition much though eager attend unfinished business III 23 decided, understood that: Whatever "hallmarks [a] trial" borne, differed trials crucial Clause: dealt "offence" Thus, search rationale "progeny," continually tripped over text 24 Recent developments, illuminated our jurisprudence. Our Apprendi New Jersey, 530 466 (2000), clarified constitutes "element" Sixth jury-trial guarantee. Put simply, (other conviction) increases maximum punishment defendant, matter how labels element, 482-484, 490. 25 Just last Term recognized import Ring 536 584 (2002), eligible "operate `the functional equivalent element offense.'" 609 say, guarantee, "murder" distinct, lesser included "murder plus circumstances": Whereas former exposes latter permissible Accordingly, jury, found, preponderance 608-609. 26 can think principled reason distinguish, context, between guarantee Cf. Monge California, 524 721, 738 (1998) (SCALIA, dissenting) ("The fundamental distinction elements go sentence" "delimits boundaries important constitutional rights, like right jury," "provides foundation entire jurisprudence"). post-Ring world, can, must, consistent Amendment. If concludes meet burden proving attach circumstance(s)." correct focus factfinder constituted circumstances; central "comparable trial," 209 (citing 438), circumstances" simpliciter. 27 For then, "first-degree murder" properly Ring, 609. conclusion operate retrying thus, penalty) 28 But happened. During reaching life, making regarding hours dismissed hung 109-110, succeeded invalidating offense; "jeopardy" never terminated Green 355 184, 189 (1957) Ball, 163 662 (1896)); Selvester 170 262, 269 (1898). IV 29 dissent reads Court's 82 (1978), supporting where, "case terminating proceedings," 126 (opinion J.), problems reasoning. 30 First, understatement say "Scott home [petitioner's]," 123. statement relies "may" "trial favorably basis related "had either insisted submitted trier fact," 96 added) nothing dictum, tentative ("may") that. thin reed rest hitherto unknown prohibition entirely rational course jury's failure convict provisionally final, 31 Second, dictum Scott embrace present case. "insist" determination, contrary asked hung. recognizes, "move[d] `that discharged' [Pa. 42,] §9711(c)(1)(v)." Post, 125, n. 5. response grant [the] motion," determination entitled sought. Surely hinge characterizes action self-initiated motion. 96. actually happened protection: procedural grounds (there, delay indictment; jury); measured length delay; likelihood producing verdict) standard relief appropriate; (3) concluding was, relief. 32 Nor, these "perils protect." 124 (GINSBURG, dissenting). stresses "subject `ordeal' full-blown "`compel[s] [him] live continuing anxiety insecurity.'" 187); see 127. admit, concern determinative here. hardly presents specter "an all-powerful relentlessly pursuing fact." Instead, which, number perfectly understandable reasons, 110, quite reasonably agreed pursue not-yet-vindicated "`one complete opportunity violated laws'" anyway, Washington, 434 497, 509 (1978)). V 33 claim, freestanding claim alleging deprivation due process violation He contends regardless unfairly deprived interests resulting frames argument terms: 34 "Pennsylvania created constitutionally protected liberty finality mandated [deadlocked] jury. vested mandatory Subjecting [p]etitioner resentencing [D]ue [P]rocess." Reply Brief 18-19. 35 not. Section deprive liberty, property, ." (Emphasis added.) immutable. based. 36 bottom, due-process clothing. said: 37 Bill Rights speaks explicit terms many expansion guarantees open-ended rubric invites undue interference considered legislative judgments balance Constitution strikes order." Medina 505 437, 443 (1992). 38 decline invitation 39 40 correctly therefore, 41 Affirmed. Notes: KENNEDY joins judgment. 43 I join extend reach continue believe wrongly decided. 523-553 (O'CONNOR, dissenting); 584, 619-620 (2002) remains my view "Apprendi's rule treated crime Constitution, history, cases." 619. 44 progeny deadlocks fails "acquittal merits" barring Because bear 211 sentencer "decide[s] proved appropriate." 147, 155 (1986) deleted internal quotation marks omitted). absence "clean slate" 719-721 (1969), arises. 45 When, "decide" Rather, all. Petitioner's "agre[e] ha[d] case." about (where "entered circumstances," "judgment, penalty"). short, "acquit" Rumsey. 46 mandates not, reasons ante, transform acquittal. offended appropriate offenses. need more. 47 whom BREYER join, dissenting. 48 concerns events "terminat[e] jeopardy" 325 specific controversy before involves deadlock. question qualifies jeopardy-terminating event. does. 49 stage imposing Ordinarily, final. retry 7; Tr. Oral Arg. 26. successfully retrial.1 50 today holds state-mandated deadlock, block question. rules although 25-26, merits," 107-108 (1984)). indeed "attac[h] significance acquittal," 91 (1978); jurisprudence accords "absolute acquittal[,] erroneous decision," Burks (1978). And, stresses, Sattazahn's "acqui[t]" "on merits." Ante, 107 (internal undebatable points inevitably dispositive recognize terminate Richardson, ("[T]he event, original jeopardy." added.)). 51 it, genuinely debatable, tenable side. Comprehending light conclude hold, herein 52 way secure gain acquittal.2 atypical situation prevails Unusual recognizes existence. "primary purpose" "protect integrity" determinations innocence. 92. acknowledged, "this developed body guarding avoiding prosecutions innocence made." "Such interests," observed, "may situations: first, declares mistrial; second, 53 category mistrials instructive, hand fit within category. deciding reprosecution mistrial, balanced valued completed tribunal summoned sit public insuring justice meted out offenders." citation Weighing interests, declared sua sponte unless stopping "manifest necessity." 93-94; see, e. g., Downum 372 734, 737-738 (1963). long recognized, meets necessity" criterion, justifies court's declaration mistrial subsequent reprosecution. Retrial avoid mistrial," 93, intentionally provoked government's actions, 94. "[s]uch deemed deliberate election forgo determined 93. 54 described "termination [a defendant's] 94 quality termination imports. "When invariably contemplates prosecutor permitted proceed anew notwithstanding plea granted, contrast, "obviously defendant." example, dismiss count indictment, submission preindictment delay. wanted "reinstate face ruling," simply refiled instead, "seek court" appeal. Ibid.3 55 falls Scott's stage, declared, provided "then there" favor. will. "mak[e] completion" "impossible," Wade Hunter, 336 684, 689 (1949); bring 9711(c)(1)(v) 56 relatively undeveloped. observed outset, 119, favorable deadlocks. have, addressed underscores, 114, protection. allowing stressed "deliberately ch[ose] unrelated prosecution's delay, 98-99: "successfully undertook persuade submit empaneled try him," 99. Although holding "does relieve consequences voluntary choice," ibid., reiterated purpose "repeated attempts individual thereby subjecting embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling insecurity," 95 187 (1957)). 57 ruling placing outside zone protection, sum, tied episode choice abort "[T]he Government," "was production ., elected "This scarcely picture 58 true, Sattazahn's. reasoning, nevertheless, lends credence trial-terminating prompted move part, (judgment "legal entitlement" retrial). innocence, implicated preverdict trials. renewed surely engaged significantly dismissal noted earlier, 118, through 59 Moreover discrete analysis protect plainly position "ordeal" "compel[s] [them] insecurity." Green, 187.4 60 Despite attendant generation insecurity, allowed "one laws." 509; Wade, ("a instances subordinated public's fair designed judgments"). opportunity: direction legislature itself. instance "the Government evidence," thwarted defense-proffered 61 sanctioned adjudication. there, voluntarily avoided himself proceeding; moving, Ibid.; 188 (suggesting consents jury). here: Unlike "issue guilt" "submitted "forced gantlet once" 190. Nor trial.5 Once directly end. absent here.6 62 novel close question: penalty, decide favor, stated, giving weight ultimate considerations. confronts perilous choice, previously 193-194. decision, deadlock chooses conviction, she faces possibility successful If, hand, loses stands. words, relinquish file potentially meritorious state-granted 63 interpret manner puts bind. rejected appealing second-degree prolonged charge. require "barter [their] punishable price another offense." 193. law," "should place [defendants] incredible dilemma." barter state-law nevertheless considerations advanced inform 64 faced death, "unique severity finality." 732 These qualities heighten prosecution. "hazards second] possible conviction," 187, "continuing insecurity" subjects "financial" well "emotional burden" 503-504, exacerbated Death, moreover, "dilemma" decides "incredible." elaboration Gregg Georgia, 153, (1976) (joint Stewart, Powell, JJ.), demonstrates, "different" others. 65 life. therefore reverse Pennsylvania. typical unable verdict, immediate reprosecute counts See,e. 318, (1984); Martin Linen Supply Co., 564, 570 (1977). times said protects integrity "final judgments." See,e.g., Crist Bretz, 28, (1978) ("A primary served "akin doctrines res judicata collateral estoppel preserve judgments."); 92 ("the judgment"). declarations, appears used judgment" interchangeably Crist, (referring English commonlaw trial"); (equating term innocence"). dismissals indictments contemplate analyzed them mistrials. SeeLee 432 (1977) (dismissal indictment dismissal). identifies policy why prefer provide reopened mount Seeante, 115. automatically follow, provisional compatible infra, 127 (urging heightens concerns). governing "received communication foreperson indicating deadlocked." stated: "I down inquire deliberations productive."Ibid. Only point "that discharged" 9711(c)(1)(v). conducted "hopelessly deadlocked"; "by virtue law" 23-24. referred back read record, judge's conduct inquiry, defensive announcement instructs. 711 (1969); DiFrancesco, 449 117 (1980). basic design provision repeated convict, consequent subjection expense, anxiety, "no application 136. determined, proof factors offenses, 106-109; 110-112 J.); (2002); (1981). permitting noncapital address

Category: 0