Document: 522 U.S. 269118 S.Ct. 757139 L.Ed.2d 702 Douglas McArthur BUCHANAN, Jr., Petitioner,v.Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al. No. 96-8400. Supreme Court the United States Argued Nov. 3, 1997. Decided Jan. 21, 1998. Syllabus* Following petitioner Buchanan's conviction capital murders his father, stepmother, and two brothers, prosecutor sought death penalty based on Virginia's aggravating factor that crime was vile. During sentencing hearing, there were days testimony as to troubled family background mental emotional problems, defense counsel both made extensive arguments mitigating evidence effect it should be given in sentencing. The trial court instructed jury, inter alia, if found beyond a reasonable doubt conduct vile, "then you may fix punishment . at death,'' but "if believe from all is not justified, then shall life imprisonment.'' refused request give four additional instructions particular statutory factors general instruction concept evidence. jury returned verdict death, imposed sentence, affirmed. Federal District denied Buchanan habeas corpus relief, Fourth Circuit Held: absence mitigation statutorily defined did violate Eighth Fourteenth Amendments. In arguing contrary, fails distinguish between differing constitutional treatment this has accorded phases process: eligibility phase, which narrows class death-penalty-eligible defendants, selection phase here issue, determines whether impose sentence an eligible defendant. See, e.g., Tuilaepa v. California, 512 967, 971-972, 114 2630, 2634-2635, 129 750. state shape structure jury's consideration evidence, so long restrictions determination do preclude giving any such E.g., Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 317-318, 109 2934, 2946-2947, 106 256. determinative standard likelihood applied its way prevents constitutionally relevant Boyde 494 370, 380, 110 1190, 1197-1198, 108 316. these principles. This conclusion confirmed by context given. directed jurors base their decision "all evidence'' they believed warranted, detailed Because parties agreed substantial had weigh against making discretionary appropriate penalty, understood Pp. ___-___. 103 F.3d 344 (C.A.4 1996), REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. J., filed concurring opinion. BREYER, dissenting opinion, STEVENS GINSBURG, Gerald T. Zerkin, appointed Richmond, VA, for petitioner. Katherine P. Baldwin, respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 case calls us decide Amendment requires generally, or factors. We hold does not. 2 On afternoon September 15, 1987, murdered younger brothers. convicted murder more than one person part same act transaction Amherst County, Virginia. See Va.Code Ann. §18.2-31(7) (1996). A separate hearing held, basis §19.2-264.3 (1995). 3 opening statement proceeding, told he would asking vileness. He conceded childhood informed have balance things petitioner's favor crimes committed. App. 25-27. Defense outlined present executed Id., 29. For days, heard seven witnesses eight prosecution witnesses. recounted mother's early breast cancer, father's subsequent remarriage, parents' attempts prevent him seeing maternal relatives. psychiatrist also testified under extreme disturbance time crime, largely stress caused manner dealt with reacted death. Two health experts prosecution. They generally factual events commission crimes. 4 closing argument, "even find vileness return sentence. I will suggest you.'' 43. While admitting existence agreeing conduct, argued circumstances warranted penalty. 43-44, 57-58. explained noted "practically can considered mitigation.'' discussed length lack prior criminal activity, offense, significantly impaired capacity appreciate criminality conform law's requirements, youth. Counsel factors, recognized Code, mitigated offense. 59-61, 64-66. 5 Commonwealth instruct pattern instruction.1 That before could first must prove next stated condition met, Defendant without objection. 39. 6 requested several instructions. proposed factors-no significant history activity; disturbance; requirements; age. These are listed facts offense Code.2 Each exist, fact mitigates imposing consider deciding 75-76.3 stating that, "In addition specified other instructions, surrounding [Buchanan] offense.'' 74. relying law holding proper singling out certain jury. 39-40. 7 once reached options, foreman sign corresponding form. form unanimously vile "having offense,'' fixed 77. When read polled each juror agreement verdict. 8 court, after mandated see §19.2-264.5 (1995), subsequently direct appeal, reviewed proportionality, §17.110.1-17.110.2 (1996), affirmed Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 384 S.E.2d 757 (1989), cert. sub nom., Virginia, 493 1063, 880, 107 963 (1990). 9 Petitioner federal relief. petition. Appeals discretion ""guided channeled requiring examination specific argue imposition penalty''' order eliminate arbitrariness capriciousness. 347 (quoting Proffitt Florida, 428 242, 258, 96 2960, 2969, 49 913 (1976)). However, our Zant Stephens, 462 862, 890, 2733, 2749-2750, 77 235 (1983), own precedent, concluded require adopt standards instructing juries circumstances. F.3d, 347. It therefore held allowing procedure satisfied requirement individualized cases. 347-48. granted certiorari, 520 ----, 117 1551, 137 700 (1997), now affirm. 10 contends violated right free arbitrary capricious when failed provide express guidance mitigation, guidance, argued, renders unacceptable. 11 initially recognizes, must, cases distinguished different aspects process, phase. 971, 2634, 750 (1994). defendants often through S.Ct., 2634. 972, 2634-2635. concedes only stake case. argues, however, decisions indicate make limited channeled. Gregg Georgia, 153, 206-207, 2909, 2940-2941, 859 (1976). further argues obligation authority deemed State. 12 No rule ever been adopted appropriately recognizes distinction phases, we those regard stressed need channeling limiting ensure proportionate imposition. contrast, emphasized broad inquiry into allow determination. Tuilaepa, supra, 971-973, 2634-2636; Romano Oklahoma, 1, 6-7, 2004, 2008-2009, (1994); McCleskey Kemp, 481 279, 304-306, 1756, 1773-1775, 95 262 (1987); 878-879, 2743-2744. 13 established sentencer precluded considering, refuse consider, 256 (1989); Eddings 455 104, 113-114, 102 869, 876-877, 71 (1982); Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 604, 98 2954, 2964-2965, 57 973 (1978). State Johnson Texas, 509 350, 362, 113 2658, 2666, 125 290 (1993); Penry, 326, 2951; Franklin 487 164, 181, 2320, 2331, 101 155 (1988). Our consistent concern being able Thus, 316 (1990), determining satisfy principles "whether challenged evidence.'' 1198; Johnson, 367-368, 2669. 14 But never gone affirmatively And indeed, complete permissible. 978-979, 2638-2639 (noting confined submitting propositional questions indeed unbridled discretion); 875, 2741-2742 (rejecting argument scheme permitting exercise "unbridled discretion'' defendant unconstitutional, noting accepting overrule Gregg, supra). 15 foreclose By directing evidence,'' afforded opportunity proved "may fix'' justified lesser "shall'' thus allowed even proved. Moreover, contrast Texas special issues question 2951, constrain mitigation.4 16 Even entertain some clarity entire expressly Boyde, validity listing eleven punishment, including catch-all " [a]ny circumstance extenuates gravity crime.'' U.S., 373-374, 1194-1195. unclear, "the proceedings led character 383, 1199. unlikely court's transformed defendant's ""into virtual charade.''' Ibid. California Brown, 479 538, 542, 837, 840, 93 934 (1987)). 17 Similarly, here, relating problems. likely disregard decision, particularly Further buttressing context, "there offered petitioner.'' 386, 1201; 367, 18 Amendments Constitution. judgment 19 Affirmed. 20 concurring. 21 agree no "reasonable 1201, join continue adhere my view not, event, Petitioner's "that channeled,'' ante, __, perfectly describes incompatibility Lockett-Eddings Furman 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 (1972) (per curiam), sentencer's constrained avoid freakish Walton Arizona, 497 639, 656, 3047, 3058-3059, 111 511 (1990) (SCALIA, judgment). Court's ongoing attempt resolve contradiction drawing line sand "eligibility phases'' is, view, incoherent ultimately doomed failure. 22 whom GINSBURG join, dissenting. 23 "directly related personal culpability defendant,'' "reflect reasoned moral response background, character, 545, 841, (1987) (O'CONNOR, concurring). Consequently, judge's during "from factor, aspect record proffers less death.'' (1978) (emphasis omitted). majority [is] evidence.''' Ante, __ 1198, (1990)). misapplies standard. 24 instruction, entirety, indicates likelihood'' "applied instruction'' prevented considering "constitutionally namely, presented mitigation. supplemented discussion 74-76, follows: 25 [1]You punishable You sentenced imprisonment. 26 [2]Before committing Buchanan, Sr., Christopher Donald Joel Jerry Geraldine Patterson them, outrageously wantonly horrible inhuman, involved torture, depravity mind aggravated battery above victims, them. 27 [3]If requirements preceding paragraph, 28 [4]If second paragraph 29 [5]In twelve sentence.'' 73-74. 30 believes contains language telling specifically phrase: 31 "or 32 __. words, opposite. seems say finds "fix To more-and more-is tell (concerning, say, relationships victims) decision. reader might review themselves following paraphrase mind: Paragraph tells sets forth potential thereby explaining what experienced lawyers understand "aggravators'' (i.e., criteria "death eligibility''). says cannot unless proves (beyond doubt) least "outrageously inhuman battery.'' 34 3-the key paragraph-repeats eligibility, immediately adds stringing together phrases, along use connective "or,'' leads understanding saying, "If (on evidence') "justified,' Without explanation, well "justified'' turns presence 2's crime-not upon about upbringing 35 makes matters worse. Commonwealth's failure means position coming just phrase justified,'' suggests reading explanation "justified.'' So read, reinforces misconception creates. 36 Were up lawyers, differently-in understands Lawyers who represent aware differences "eligibility'' "aggravators,'' "selection'' setting criteria, happens death-eligible, ineligible Such 3's "or'' connecting "selection phase'' alternatives-the (death) insufficient (life imprisonment) sufficient parsing highly complicated, technical alone understand. Theirs meaning natural suggests, either versed litigation, lawyers. 37 sense "not justified''-so words referring "aggravators''-would cleared up. mention anywhere clarification nothing Why lay trying follow depended simply "aggravators''? interpreted, clearly Lockett's permit 38 precedent supporting position. set sufficient, explicitly referred weighing n. 1194-1195 1. (1993), concededly take account (the future dangerousness) enough cover (youth) raised. 354, 2661-2662. 183-188, 2332-2335, (1988) judgment) (same). inadequate similar involving (mental retardation) encompassed mentioned deliberateness actions; dangerousness; provocation deceased). 39 All amici cited After decided Franklin, mentions M. McCormick, Blackwell, & B. Practice §§98.18-98.19 (10th ed.1995); Tex.Crim. Proc.Code Ann., Art. 37.071 (Supp.1996-1997). too, recently amended unlike us, "any justify excuse fairness mercy extenuate reduce degree punishment.'' Model Jury Instructions, Criminal, Instruction 34.127 (1993 Supp.1995). 40 Finally, majority, given,'' ante 762, failings. concede considerable background. presentation taken account-particularly exclude universe considerations. Cf. Hitchcock Dugger, 393, 397-398, 1821, 1823-1824, 319, 2947 ("it sentencer''). realize attorney relevant, point. advice advocacy ignore discount. lost significance prosecution's concession, concession brief appearance lengthy arguments, basic point sufficiently mitigate 41 Though statements help serious misinstruction, consequences here. look judge, counsel, authoritative direction hears. Taylor Kentucky, 436 478, 488-489, 1930, 1936-1937, 56 468 (1978); Carter 450 288, 20, 1112, 1120, 67 241 (1981). reasons mentioned, taking together, created 1198. uphold "risk spite call severe penalty.'' Lockett, 605, 2965. breaks promise Brown (Emphasis deleted.) 42 reasons, dissent. * syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. "You "Before [his family] 73. Evidence admissible, subject rules governing admissibility, include defendant, Facts include, to, following: (i) (ii) felony committed while influence disturbance, (iv) felony, impaired, (v) age '' §19.2-264.4(B) (1995) (amended, part). "is mitigates'' "shall consider.'' dissent relies regarding belatedly attempted oral argument. Post, __-__. claim waived, since trial, objection, raised previously. dissent's theory sense. disjunctive clauses third lead think imprisonment aggravator interpretation odds ordinary instruction's structure. presents simple decisional tree. states doubt. fourth paragraphs alternative tasks according succeeds meeting burden. "if'' proved, choose life. choices follow. involves task strong "misconception'' envisioned result strained language.

Category: 0