Document: 487 U.S. 164 108 S.Ct. 2320 101 L.Ed.2d 155 Donald Gene FRANKLIN, Petitionerv.James A. LYNAUGH, Director, Texas Department of Corrections. No. 87-5546. Argued March 1, 1988. Decided June 22, Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, See 1263, 109 25. Syllabus At petitioner's capital murder trial, his principal defense was that he had been mistakenly identified, and that—even if the person who stabbed victim—her death resulted from incompetent hospital treatment not assault. After jury found him guilty, sole mitigating evidence presented at penalty phase stipulation disciplinary record while incarcerated, both before after murder, without incident. conclusion hearing, trial court, pursuant to state law, submitted two "Special Issues" jury, asking whether it beyond a reasonable doubt (1) committed deliberately with expectation would result, (2) there probability petitioner constitute continuing threat society. The court instructed their answer "Yes" questions, be sentenced death. Earlier, in order direct jury's consideration Special Issues, five "special requested" instructions, which, essence, have told any they felt mitigated against should taken into account answering could alone enough return negative either one or even otherwise believed answers were warranted. declined give requested instead remonstrated remember guided by all instructions previously given, which included charge arrive verdict based on evidence. returned death, appellate affirmed. Petitioner then filed this habeas corpus action, arguing that, absent special Issues limited violation Eighth Amendment under Court's decisions. Rejecting claim, District Court denied relief, Appeals Held: judgment is 823 F.2d 98 (CA5 1987), Justice WHITE, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SCALIA, KENNEDY, concluded court's refusal did violate right present Neither actually given nor precluded relevant circumstances, unconstitutionally discretion. Pp. 171-183. (a) There no merit contention sentencing deprived sufficient opportunity consider "residual doubt" might harbored about identity as murderer, extent actions (as opposed medical mistreatment) caused, intended result in, victim's This has never held defendant constitutional an instruction telling revisit question guilt basis for mitigation. discussion Lockhart v. McCree, 476 162, 106 1758, 90 137, stands only simple truism such doubts will inure defendant's benefit where State willing allow capitalize upon them. Nor does Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 establish claimed "right," since lingering over do relate "character" "record" "the circumstances offense," sentencer must chance However, "right" existed, rejection proffered impair right, placed limitation press doubts" issue. Moreover, mistreatment intentional killing questions are precisely type concerns considered deliberateness first Issue, and, thus, make, fact made, nondeliberateness argument jury. In case, nothing offered specific direction concerning these questions. 172-176. (b) Since, permitted emphasize good prison regard second Issue future dangerousness, giving adequate weight Petitioner's failure its significance reflection independent relevance convincing, cases suggests "character," illuminated record, encompasses anything more than likely behavior. Cf. Skipper South Carolina, 1669, 1. Furthermore, presentation hearing suggested probative dangerousness. cannot avail himself statement Eddings, supra, U.S., 114, S.Ct., 877, may considering "any evidence," entitled structure factors. claim vote "independent" foreclosed Jurek Texas, 428 262, 96 2950, 49 929, constitutionally impose answered Issues. 177-180. (c) system adequately allows therefore sufficiently provides 181-182. O'CONNOR, BLACKMUN, procedure prevent effect character background offense. 183-188. Although confine context regarding thereby preventing treating other traits, practical facts because aspect lack Thus, prejudiced limitation, interfere ability 185-187. prevented guilt, Amendment. Rather being particular offense, merely uncertainty facts—a mind exists somewhere between "beyond "absolute certainty"—and thus circumstance decisions, required heightened burden proof sentencing. 187-188. J., announced Court, delivered opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA JJ., joined. opinion concurring judgment, joined, post, p. 183. STEVENS, dissenting BRENNAN MARSHALL, 189. Mark Stevens, San Antonio, Tex., petitioner. William C. Zapalac, Austin, respondent. WHITE KENNEDY join. 1 we called determine certain relating evidence, trial. 2 * Around midnight July 25, 1975, someone attacked Mary Margaret Moran, nurse Veterans' Administration parking lot she left work. Five days later, Ms. Moran found, naked, lying field midday sun. She seven times; also robbed, possibly sexually assaulted. Still alive when discovered, local hospital, died following day. 3 Suspicion focused within hours Moran's abduction, arrested morning house, police wide array physical crime.1 officers loaned car clothing friend previous evening, explanation revealed search. 4 take stand trial.2 His guilty Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03 (1974). 5 four testified bad reputation law-abiding citizen. proved prior conviction rape, witness raped her year crime committed. incarcerated 1971-1974 1976-1980 Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 37.071(b) (Vernon 1981), jury,3 instructing determined "Yes," 6 Issues.4 them mitigate them—even 7 gave brief "remember you them." App. 13. Those imposed sentence Subsequently, courts affirmed sentence. Franklin State, 693 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). 8 federal action contesting Among claims, argued contrary decision Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 2954, 57 973 (1978), several decisions well. rejected finding error precedents. 22. denial relief commenting claim. 98, 99-100 1987). 9 sought review Court. We granted certiorari violated 484 891, 221, 180 (1987), now affirm below. II 10 929 (1976), expressly upheld constitutionality manner juries. id., 273, 2957 (opinion Stewart, Powell, JJ.). here challenge scheme general matter, see Tr. Oral Arg. 11; disavowed request overrule Jurek, 18, 20. 11 complain ignore present. Hitchcock Dugger, 481 393, 107 1821, 95 347 (1987). Here, offered. It established practice permit " 'whatever circumstances' able show" sentencing—a relied our case require reversal earlier approval Jurek. 606-607, 2965-2966 Burger, C.J.). decade followed, expressed resolute adherence Lockett, declaring Texas' procedures free ask . whatever can bring it." Quinones 592 933, 947 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).5 12 nevertheless complains provide process guilt. allegedly behavior prison. addition, contends afforded "giv[e] weight," 605, 2965, presented; i.e., weigh apart deliberation requiring life Brief 20; 23. 13 claims respect each "mitigating factors." 14 may, deliberations, three issues trial: first, murderer; second, caused death; third, 13; Record 2892-2896. He argues arriving 15 16 outset, note murderer 180-182, 1768-1770, 137 (1986), supports position entitlement. 6-7; 9. But "States go defendants 'residual doubts,' benefit. Lockhart, 181, 1769. endorse schemes use doubts," let suggest demand phase. Indeed, dissent recognized "few times legitimacy given" notion convicted argue innocence during 205-206, 1781-1782 (MARSHALL, dissenting). noted struck down some States prohibiting punishment trial.6 Ibid. Our edict 'the [may] considering, factor, offense,' 110, 874, (1982) (quoting 604, 2964), way mandates reconsideration juries, phase, Such "record," "circumstance offense." understand them, fail recognize factor. 17 Most importantly, inclined discern Amendment, find case. For done impaired exercise "right." whatsoever view, impact reject complaint possibility residual "self-evidently issue questions," "[u]nless relation [the issue] question[s], jurors logically irrelevant." 16. problems themselves potential doubt." 7-12. proposed subject deliberations phase.7 Consequently, difficult how 18 sum, seek hearing—a questionable proposition—the 19 20 third elements advances—potential responsibility indeed attacker—we think respects. 21 victim perished received proper treatment. 5, 2895-2896. Yet, implicates culpability causing concern One, determining conduct Defendant victim] deceased result." 15. consistently something phase—something guilt-phase "intentional" commission crime—before "deliberate" meaning Issue. See, e.g., Marquez 725 217, 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Fearance 620 577, 584 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). fact, juries occasion, "intentional murder" one. Heckert 612 549, 552 make similar 22 same true parallel advance end hearing: one, but rather, "a [h]elter-skelter crazy passion." 2962-2963. echoed theme raised closing 2893-2897. element likewise 23 culpability. And, discussed Part II-A(1), provided further guidance, already efforts gain full including phase—of Moran. B 24 period incarceration, 25 As above, case—in bit mitigation 2952-2953. unlike 3, 1670, wholly excluded deliberations. To contrary, press, emphasis, urged close "No" 2963-2965. acknowledged much 14, 24. 26 objects, however, that—absent instructions—there record. 2964. Issues—as "character." Skipper, 4, 1671. reflected so positively "mechanism through sentence" "Yes." reasons, arguments convincing. 27 First, accorded impulse proceeded task. resolving surely evaluate bore "character"—that is, measured defined what term means sentencing.8 aspects far encompassed those matters fully asked 28 relevancy dealt exclusively reflects 4-5, 1670-1671. Nothing decision. Skipper's future-dangerousness question, posed Two "No." 2963-2964. Even seeking define sheds light cast terms dangerousness.9 29 unavailing reliance relevant, evidence." leaves unanswered question: what? While 2964, least part—making clear out realm considerations "circumstances offense"—Lockett hold role structuring shape Booth Maryland, 482 496, 502, 2529, 2532-2533, 440 Given awesome power advisable framework discharging responsibilities. And method balancing aggravating factors proceeding required. Zant Stephens, 462 862, 875-876, n. 13, 103 2733, 2741-2742, 77 235 (1983). 30 quite sure improperly limited. completely appropriate still penalty, submission 273-274, (joint opinion). overruled; now.10 III 31 well supported principles governing developed Gregg Georgia, 153, 2909, 859 supra. 32 decided, gone establishing entitlement appeal leniency juries' 113-117, 876-878; 608, 2966 doing, discretion unlimited unguided; undirected unfocused; channel effort achieve rational equitable administration penalty. 33 Much just opposite. "must [capital] sentencer's 'clear objective standards' 'specific detailed guidance' 'make rationally reviewable imposing death.' Godfrey 446 420, 428, 100 1759, 1764-1765, 64 398 (1980) (plurality opinion) (footnotes omitted). similarly "sentencers unbridled fates charged offenses" "Constitution requires statutes structured administered arbitrary unpredictable fashion." California Brown, 479 538, 541, 837, 839, 93 934 Proffitt Florida, 242, 253, 2960, 2967, 913 (1976) opinion); 189, 195, 46, 196, 47, 198, 2932, 2935, 2936, 2936 34 Arguably lines cases—Eddings hand, other—are somewhat "tension" other. 544, 840-841 (O'CONNOR, concurring). Yet providing cited repeatedly favor,11 accommodates concerns. Doubtlessly why originally approved guide notwithstanding averted plurality Court—that employed inform 272-273, 2956-2957.12 No continued pass muster, laid broad rule C.J.), Simply put, "allo[w] unique characteristics perpetrator, provid[e] discretion." Lowenfield Phelps, 231, 245, 546, 555, 568 (1988). adhere conclusion. IV 35 Because believe here, Fifth Circuit's 36 Affirmed. 37 whom BLACKMUN joins, judgment. 38 express views questions: Did deliberately? Is pose society? decide 39 concludes goes limit authority offense mitigates Ante, 179, 180, 10. Unlike plurality, I fashion. write separately explain my reasons 40 satisfied requirement allowed punishment. observed though statute explicitly mention Criminal construed dangerousness criminal age, mental state, Id., 271-273, 2956-2957. Since emphasized Constitution guarantees facing possible introduce authority. "from mitigation." 2965 reaffirmed (1982), 41 principle underlying directly related personal defendant. 42 "[E]vidence belief, long society, commit acts attributable disadvantaged background, emotional problems, less culpable excuse. stage reflect reasoned moral response character, crime." 545, 841, (1987) concurring) (emphasis original). 43 body meaningless unless consideration. 44 Under followed introduced returning question. If, scope vehicle expressing "reasoned response" If inability amounted violation. violations undisputed demonstrated positive traits exist endangering jailers fellow inmates, view character. 12, ("Nothing limits traditional exclude, irrelevant, bearing offense"); 877 (holding evidence") added). 45 value best illustrated contrasting examples dissent. 190. Evidence voluntary service, kindness others, religious devotion demonstrate that. surprising, reveals except highly environment others. 46 entirely consistent (1986). vacated "it appear[ed] reasonably exclusion jail (and hence, prison) affected sentence." 8, 1673. us, suffered prejudice limitations 47 sentence, doubt[s]" uses phrase refer lingered minds convinced doubt, absolutely 14. conclude ante, 175; open however. course specifically affirmative instruction, thought petitioner, doubt. 48 fails, body, rather it. support proposition adopted enjoy linger 1769, indicated adopt procedures. points out, preclude 173, 6. mandating circumstance. call 839; 840 concurring); 112, 875; 117, 878 2965. "Residual crime. facts, certainty." bodies "an absolute certainty" imposition 50 sum agree plurality's guarantee. concur 51 MARSHALL join, dissenting. 52 discusses subjects. II-A explains interference making determination. disagree II-B determination insofar shed Finally, last paragraph III, makes comments scheme. shall begin why, scheme, weight. comment portion seems imply permissible "channel sentencing" foreclosing 53 consisted indicating periods imprisonment aggregating years violations. That militated different ways. Looking past, redeeming features; human conform strict rules incident virtues fairly balanced society's interest retribution violent future, prison, protect society violence admissible purposes. 54 show "future adaptability life" 6, 1672 original), properly admitted prove "past purposes character." distinction excluding Implicitly past history prediction 55 Ironically, today turns end. holds needed probable conduct. wrong. Past often insights person's evoke merciful ultimate happen future. honorable military service community regular church attendance. aid predicting conduct, tells personality. Importantly, example, keeping usual qualities Further, appropriateness alternative him, another Thus "encompassed [just] Issue," 178, violence. 56 "The fundamental humanity Amendment's prohibition cruel unusual gives rise 'need reliability punishment' case." Johnson Mississippi, 486 578, 584, 1981, 1986, 99 ---- reason, "considering 2957, determination, explicating rigorously enforced rule: A hear desires introduce, 1670; 394, 1822, "independent weight" (1978);1 112-113, (1982). condemned erection barriers device barrier created. Mills 367, 375, 1860, 1865, 384, 394 (1988); 2955 (statute); 398-399, 1824 (same); 871 (sentencing decision); 1669 (evidentiary ruling). 58 On face, 272, 2956. Instead asks "yes" "no" two, instances three, Issues." Here acted "deliberately" "with [her] result" assaulted "would society." 168—169, 3. informed neither understood informing subjected removed effectively irrelevant 59 errs suggesting precedents "structur[e]" shape", factor defining include 117—178. permissibly "framework" discharge "awesome power," inconsistent holdings enumerated meaningful allowing like unconstitutional Hitchcock, finds constitutional. 60 contend complete constituted misapprehended attach descriptive predictive justified death—whether dangerousness—authority assuredly 2957; Adams 448 38, 2521, 2526, 65 581 (1980). remotely intuitively possibility, us risk introduced. 383-384, 1870-1871. cases, substantial failed perceive ambit vacate remand resentencing. 1870; 119, 879 Chief Burger's words apply determinately us: 61 "There perfect deciding governmental used [or evidentiary instruction] prevents creates spite severe When choice unacceptable incompatible commands Fourteenth Amendments." 62 introduces gratuitous advice 180. observation facial course, here. recognizes, 171, Rather, asserted error. 63 holding sentences facially valid statutes. although "as circumstances," 115, 10, set aside appeared judge 875-876. 1824, sustained Florida attack advisory nonstatutory circumstances. instant analogous; upholding validity dispositive rights referring "directed minimize capricious action," adduced defendant, premised recognition accommodated tension. 182. turn understanding performed narrowing function; there, interfered employing list defines narrows class. 245-246, ----, point explained care joint Jurek: 66 judgments post-Furman law—in Smith [540 693], 49,809 (Feb. 1976). law 'limits small group narrowly particularly brutal offenses. insures most serious crimes [and] [it] offenses occur types circumstances.' 522 S.W.2d, 939. 67 "While statutory existence justify Georgia categories murders ever serves purpose. McGautha California, 402 183, 206, [91 1454, 1466, 16, 711] (1971); Model 201.6, Comment pp. 71-72 (Tent. Draft 9, 1959). classes made guilt-determining felony, hire, inmate penal institution time commission. [428 U.S.], 165-166, [96 2921, 9]; 248-249, 6]. imposed. So concerned, therefore, difference available option—even potentially—for smaller class Texas. Otherwise similar. Each focus particularized nature 270-271, 2955-2956. 68 Having narrowed imposed, confronted invalid "all evidence" "should imposed."2 yet meanings decided indicate "to 2957. implies curtail 69 important consider, bear, danger arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory decisionmaking attends vesting sentencer. Georgia's challenge. wished nowhere doing narrow remove persons offend Constitution, 199, 203, 2937, 2939; especially directed stated: 70 Legislature plainly discretion, permitting dispense mercy too intangible statute, accept naked assertion bound fail. become peculiarly reason aggravating-circumstance requirement, becomes expect juries—even penalty—will defined. do, longer said wantonly freakishly infrequently loses usefulness device." 222, 2947-2948 judgment). guided, blinding hallmark guides directs presence "require recommends 197, 2936. bar offender furthers goal focusing attention 72 suggests, 182, bears infirm. channeled enlighten process, license place blinders disregard create tension focuses 73 rely "were written factors," Respondent O.T.1975, 5394, added), interpreted 74 "What essential information individual whose fate determine. clearly assures adduced." 276, 2958. met shortcoming matter cause be, occurred 75 respectfully items home were: pair shoes blood matched type; clothes, soiled plant samples (matching discovered); shirts, covered fibers sweater. trash behind various property knife later apparent weapon. Similar fiber, plant, sample car, matching blood, clothing, found. 606 818, 819-821 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). petition proceedings 1982 convictions unrelated now. 422 "Do Defendant, Franklin, result? society?" were, pertinent part, follows: 'You your Death Penalty, Defendant's "Yes"; event ' Requested Charge Punishment 7. 'An [Special] if: '2) ten (10) Penalty exist, '3) causes 8-9 (No. Two). (Texas instructs answer. 13.). penalty.' Three). One Four). Five). also, Cordova 733 175, 189-190, 691 619, 625-626 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Stewart 686 118, 121 Williams 674 315, 322 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). Finding presents arguably common penalty-only trials sentence—but appeal. Scott 310 Md. 277, 301, 529 A.2d 340, 352 (1987); Stringer 500 So.2d 928, 946 (Miss.1986); Whalen 492 552, 569 (Del.1985). 205, 1781 has, occasions, remand. 399, himself, "resentenced comports requirements "—not retried doubts." 21. doubtful "penalty-only" violative rights. logical Likewise, argument—the phase—did draw guilt" defense's lengthy suggestion, "our inherent fallibility [that] mistake." 2968. Otherwise, committing 1670-1671, (1986); (1982); (1978) Woodson North 280, 304, 2978, 2991, 944 (1976). describing what, arguably, principally "Mr. Franklin's strength live peaceful, productive stayed others." 18-19 argument, likelihood injuring others 27-28. says infirm "limits Post, 199. reconcile dissent's avowed held, whenever inquiry—then undertaking. final analysis, appears taking evidence—they 199-200. put being: "Does you, above lead imposed?" mandate inquiry—one virtually every suggestion circumstance, view. overruled modified. differences enough: stated precedent; decline so. 554-555, 193 193, 1775; Pulley Harris, 465 37, 48-49, 104 871, 878-879, 79 (1984); 2741-2742 (1983); repeat acknowledgment, that—as matter—a deliberating aware consequences answers, formulates "pure balancing" States. 2526. systems examination. Members endorsed entire Burger precedential MARSHALL's rested broader ground plurality's. Marks United States, 430 188, 97 990, 993, 260 (1977) (when single rationale supporting majority viewed concurred narrowest grounds"). emphasized: "A imposed." 271,

Category: 0