Document: 516 U.S. 10116 S.Ct. 283133 L.Ed.2d 251 Lem Davis TUGGLE, Jr.v.J.D. NETHERLAND, Warden. No. 95-6016. Supreme Court of the United States Oct. 30, 1995. PER CURIAM. 1 In Zant v. Stephens, 462 862, 103 2733, 77 235 (1983), we held that a death sentence supported by multiple aggravating circumstances need not always be set aside if one aggravator is found to invalid. Id., at 886-888, S.Ct., 2747-2749. We noted our holding did apply in which jury instructed weigh against mitigating determining whether impose penalty. 874, n. 12, 890, 2741, 2749. this case, Virginia and Appeals for Fourth Circuit construed as establishing rule nonweighing may upheld on basis valid circumstance, regardless reasons another factor have been Because interpretation incorrect, now grant motion leave proceed forma pauperis petition writ certiorari vacate judgment Appeals. 2 * Petitioner Tuggle was convicted murder state court. At his sentencing hearing, Commonwealth presented unrebutted psychiatric testimony petitioner demonstrated " 'a high probability future dangerousness.' Commonwealth, 230 Va. 99, 107, 334 S.E.2d 838, 844 (1985), cert. denied, Virginia, 478 1010, 106 3309, 92 722 (1986). After deliberations, had established Virginia's two statutory circumstances, "future dangerousness" "vileness"; it exercised its discretion death.1 Va., 108-109, S.E.2d, 844-845. 3 Shortly after affirmed petitioner's conviction sentence, 228 493, 323 539 (1984), Ake Oklahoma, 470 68, 105 1087, 84 53 when prosecutor presents evidence an indigent defendant's dangerousness capital proceeding, due process requires State provide defendant with assistance independent psychiatrist. 83-84, 1096-1097. denied such assistance, vacated Court's remanded further consideration light Ake. 471 1096, 2315, 85 835 (1985). 4 On remand, invalidated circumstance because error. See 108-111, 844-846. The court nevertheless reaffirmed reasoning permitted survive vileness aggravator. 110-111, 845-846. agreed analysis federal habeas review, Thompson, 57 F.3d 1356, 1362-1363 (C.A.4 1995), past.2 Quoting Court, stated: 5 'When makes separate findings specific any could support death, subsequently invalidated, remaining or will sentence.' 1363 (quoting 110, 845 citing Zant, supra ). II 6 Our opinion stressed offered prove invalid "properly adduced hearing fully subject explanation defendant." U.S., 887, 2748. As explained: 7 "[I]t essential keep mind sense [the stricken] 'invalid.' . [T]he case struck down Georgia concluded fails adequate distinguishing penalty imposed from those cases imposed. underlying admissible phase." 885-886, 2747 (internal citations omitted). 8 thus predicated fact even elimination aggravator, rested firm ground. Two unimpeachable factors remained there no claim inadmissible before during deliberations precluded adducing relevant evidence. 9 record does comparable sentence. error prevented developing own rebut Commonwealth's enhance defense mitigation. result, went unchallenged, unfairly increased persuasiveness eyes jury. assume, found, would influenced jury's determination concerning vileness. Nevertheless, absence well affected ultimate decision, based all it, rather than life imprisonment. 10 Although supports conclusion invalidation necessarily require aside, quite different proposition existence ex cuses constitutional admission exclusion latter more akin situation Johnson Mississippi, 486 578, 108 1981, 100 575 (1988), allowed consider materially inaccurate evidence, id., 590, 1988, itself. misapplied must vacated. III 11 Having remedy sentencing, whether, what procedures, might sustained reimposed; neither nor addressed harmless-error applicable case. customarily address issue first instance, remand proceedings consistent opinion. 12 So ordered. 13 Justice SCALIA, concurring. 14 This simple should simply resolved. deliberated excluded so (in us) and, having concluded, obliged determine reasonable doubt contributed decision death. Satterwhite Texas, 249, 256, 1792, 1797, 284 (1988). failed perform task, here cannot stand, appropriate allow review under standard collateral review. Brecht Abrahamson, 507 ----, 113 1710, 1716, 123 353 (1993). 15 When these were managed transform question arising constitutionally impermissible ("might jury?") into seemingly greater moment ("can part 'invalid circumstance' still stand?"). answered second question, wrong perhaps assumed easily resolved reference (1983); habeas, District understandably focused upon consequences position rendered "invalid" correctly demonstrates why here, but regrettably follows courts below failing strip "invalid circumstance" camouflage has added straightforward inadmissible-evidence punishment statute involves two-stage determination. decides both factors. Va.Code Ann. § 19.2-264.4(C)-(D) (1995). If finds satisfied, Ibid. find aggravators established, however, full either Smith Procunier, 769 F.2d 170, 173 1985).

Category: 0