Document: 542 U.S. 274 TENNARDv.DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION. No. 02-10038. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 22, 2004. Decided June 24, During his capital murder trial's penalty phase, petitioner Tennard presented evidence that he had an IQ 67. The jury was instructed to determine the appropriate punishment by considering two "special issues," which inquired into whether crime committed deliberately and defendant posed a risk future dangerousness. These were materially identical special issues found insufficient in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, for give effect Penry's mitigating mental retardation childhood abuse evidence. Tennard's answered both affirmatively, sentenced death. Federal District denied federal habeas petition claimed death sentence violated Eighth Amendment as interpreted Penry, certificate appealability (COA). Fifth Circuit agreed not entitled COA. It applied threshold test evidence, asking it met Circuit's standard "constitutional relevance" cases—that is, "uniquely severe permanent handicap" bore "nexus" crime. court concluded (1) low alone does constitute uniquely condition, no tied retardation, (2) even if amounted did show attributable it. After this vacated judgment remanded further consideration light Atkins Virginia, 536 304, reinstated its prior opinion. Held: Because "reasonable jurists would find district court's assessment constitutional claims debatable or wrong," Slack McDaniel, 529 473, 484, COA should have issued. Pp. 282-289. (a) A issue applicant has "made substantial showing denial right," 28 C. § 2253(c)(2), demonstrating "that reasonable S., at 484. Relief may be granted unless state adjudication "was contrary to, involved unreasonable application of, clearly established law, determined by" Court. 2254(d)(1). 282-283. (b) assessed claim under improper standard. Its screening foundation Court's decisions. Relevance Penry. And spoke most expansive terms when addressing relevance directly McKoy North Carolina, 494 433, 440-441, finding applicable general evidentiary "`"any tendency make existence any fact is consequence determination action more probable less than without evidence,"'" id., 440. Once met, "Eighth requires able consider to" defendant's Boyde California, 370, 377-378. inconsistent with these principles. Thus, neither severe" nor element proper reason reach substance claims. 283-288. (c) Turning analysis conducted, could conclude relevant Texas Criminal Appeals' unreasonable, since relationship between same essential features those Impaired intellectual functioning dimension beyond impact on ability act deliberately. jurist might given aggravating Indeed, prosecutor pressed exactly problematic interpretation issues, suggesting irrelevant mitigation, but 288-289. 317 F. 3d 476, reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, post, p. 289, SCALIA, 293, THOMAS, 294, filed dissenting opinions. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. Robert Owen argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Jordan M. Steiker Richard H. Burr. Edward L. Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Texas, respondent. brief Greg Abbott, General, Barry R. McBee, First Don Clemmer, Acting Deputy Gena Bunn Tommy Skaggs, Attorneys General.* JUSTICE O'CONNOR 1 In 302 (1989) (Penry I), we held sentencing scheme provided constitutionally inadequate vehicle jurors presented. case argues intelligence. courts rejected claim, writ corpus. We 484 (2000), therefore hold 2 * Petitioner convicted October 1986. trial indicated accomplices killed neighbors robbed their house. himself stabbed one victims death, other victim hatchet. 3 phase trial, defense counsel called only witness—Tennard's parole officer—who testified Department Corrections record from incarceration App. 28-29. He been administered matter course. Ibid. report, 17 years old time prepared, admitted On cross-examination, officer know who test. Id., 30. government introduced regarding conviction rape, 16. rape she escaped through window after permitted her go bathroom take bath, promising run away. 16-17. 4 answering issues" used establish life imprisonment imposed: 5 "Was conduct defendant, James Tennard, caused deceased expectation another result?" 69 (the "deliberateness issue"). 6 "Is there probability commit criminal acts violence continuing threat society?" 70 "future dangerousness 7 penalty-phase closing argument, relied score victim's testimony suggest limited faculties gullible nature mitigated culpability: 8 "Tennard got 67 IQ. guy told poor unfortunate woman [the victim] trying work day, `Well, I let you there, will leave?' believed her. This IQ, goes and, sure enough, escapes, just like have. That uncontroverted before you, man us intelligence quotient . low." 51. 9 rebuttal, prosecution suggested simply question mitigation: 10 "But really issue. legislature, address issue], reasons why became danger are relevant. danger, shows he's criteria use question." 60. 11 affirmative, accordingly 12 Unsuccessful direct appeal, sought postconviction relief. that, instructions jury, obtained violation I. case, "it enough allow present sentencer. sentencer must also imposing sentence." I, supra, 319; see Johnson, 532 782, 797 (2001) II) (describing "`give to'" language "the key" decision). (plus third immaterial questions now us) abuse, ran afoul Amendment. 319-328. His held, "`had [his] moral culpability scope [deliberateness] verdict questio[n]'" because "[p]ersonal solely function capacity `deliberately.'" 322 (some brackets original). Moreover, "evidence concerning inability learn mistakes," "only factor." 323. As failed "provide [it] effect." 322-324. 13 Appeals claim. Ex parte 960 W. 2d 57 (1997) (en banc). Writing plurality four, Presiding Judge McCormick observed definition adopted involves three components ("(1) subaverage functioning, concurrent deficits adaptive behavior, (3) onset during early development period," 60), concluded: "[Tennard's] score, standing alone, meet definition. Qualitatively quantitatively [Tennard's] approach level Johnny Paul retardation. [W]e mentally retarded." 61. 14 went relief fell "within retardation." 2d, not. explained unlike "there [that Tennard's] rendered unable appreciate wrongfulness offense, mistakes control impulses. ." 62. "no danger" answering" issue, gullibility jury's effective "could `no' answer" deliberateness 15 Two judges concurred separately, wrote "this sustained But cases, always something what case." 64 (opinion Meyers, J.) (citations omitted). Taking permissive view impaired ("[F]or purposes, distinguish dementia," though latter "may occur age eighteen," 65), concurring nevertheless contain sufficient support" 63. contention below `Penry instruction'" published opinions uniformly required more. 16 Baird dissented, maintaining "consistent[ly]" wake cannot adequately considered within statutory" issues. strayed precedent, wrote, instead "weigh[ed] sufficiency evidence." 70. Judges Overstreet Womack dissented corpus petition. Civ. Action H-98-4238 (SD Tex., July 25, 2000), 121. began observing "[e]vidence single unidentified 128. then `the reach' jury." Noting "Tennard's concealed jury; sides significance punishment," adequate means, 129. subsequently Oct. 17, 2. 18 Circuit, full briefing oral issued holding among reason. Cockrell, 284 591 (2002). stating claims, inquiry "constitutionally relevant" "`uniquely handicap burdened fault own,'" "`the condition.'" 3d, 595. 19 COA, reasons: First, tying 596. Second, fail 596-597. Dennis concluding 597-604. 20 certiorari, writ, judgment, 304 537 802 took remand substantive never prohibits execution" panel F.3d 477 (2003). again certiorari. 540 945 II 21 require "petitioner demonstrate wrong." 484; Miller-El 322, 336 (2003) ("Under controlling standard, `sho[w] debate (or, matter, agree that) resolved different manner "adequate deserve encouragement proceed further"'"). petitioner's arguments ultimately deferential 2254(d)(1): "resulted decision States." 22 State disputed properly preserved review. Not merits, note raised motion set aside indictment ground, others, "Texas statutes do explicitly specific circumstances consequently, violative accused's right free cruel unusual void vagueness." Defendant's Motion Set Aside Indictment Cause 431127 (248th Jud. Dist. Ct. Harris County, May 28, 1986), 4. B 23 Despite paying lipservice principles guiding issuance 594, proceeded along distinctly track. Rather examining decision, invoked own restrictive gloss I: 24 "In reviewing jury. To relevant, own, 595 (quoting Davis Scott, 51 457, 460-461 (CA5 1995)). 25 relevance," characterized argument "screening test," Tr. Oral Arg. 10, appears See, e. g., Bigby 340 259, 273 (2003); Robertson 325 243, 251 banc); Smith 311 661, 680 (2002); Blue 298 318, 320-321 Davis, 460-461. Only finds certain "effective reach" jur[y].'" E. Smith, (court asks "`if so,'" reach). "precluded establishing claim" nexus crime, so move question. 597. 26 decisions Neither progeny screened comported concededly Arg., O. T. 1988, 87-6177, pp. 34-36, limiting our —and think they were—they material holding. 27 When addressed cases 440-441 (1990), terms. "meaning context proceeding" context, thus —"`"any evidence"'"—applies. 440 New Jersey O., 469 325, 345 (1985)). quoted approvingly court: "`Relevant tends logically prove disprove some circumstance fact-finder reasonably deem value.'" McKoy, 323 N. 1, 55-56, 372 12, 45 (1988) Exum, J.)). bar warrants death." 441. 377-378 (1990) (citing Lockett Ohio, 438 586 (1978); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104 (1982); (1989)); Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 822 (1991) ("We preclude `any evidence' proffers support [V]irtually limits placed introduce circumstances" Eddings, 114)). 29 Most obviously, screen out positive aspect character, good character traits "handicap[s]" typically activity "attributable." Skipper South 476 (1986), however, made clear good-character can "[u]nder excluded sentencer's consideration." jail "not relate specifically committed, such [evidence] `mitigating' sense serve `as basis death.' Lockett, 604." 4-5 (citation Such said, "a disposition well-behaved peaceful adjustment prison determination." 7. Of course, via See Franklin 487 164, 177-178 (plurality opinion); 185-186 (O'CONNOR, judgment). test, came 30 elements deny 596 (contrasting condition," "severe condition"); 596-597 (concluding "must [Tennard] attributable" condition).* ground heart 31 gravity place analysis, insofar trivial feature unlikely mitigate culpability. Skipper, 7, n. all facets adjust treated potentially mitigating. For example, quarrel statement `how often defendant] shower' determination" Plath, 281 15, 313 619, 627 (1984))). However, say appellate deems "severe" (let severe") incorrect. Rather, "might death,'" 5. 32 likewise wrong refused debatability adduced 316, inherently mitigating: "[T]oday society views retarded offenders categorically culpable average criminal." Nothing individual prohibition executing triggered. Equally, countenance suggestion evidence—and need asked—unless establishes 33 jurisprudence issue" case. Brief Respondent 35, 21; 33. contrary, satisfy requirements imposed explained, precedents indeed, context. legal Cf. 341 (holding, certiorari review incorrect improperly merging statutory sections). C 34 turn conducted: Has "demonstrate[d] wrong"? has. 35 Reasonable Evidence significantly obviously 5; also, Wiggins 539 510, 535 (observing, respect 79, "Wiggins['] diminished capacitie[s] augment mitigation case"); Burger Kemp, 483 776, 779, 789, (1987) (noting "had 82 functioned 12-year-old child," later "[i]n youth `mental emotional several chronological age' court" 116)). 36 facts unreasonable. individual's 322. well dangerousness, inference them so: "[W]hether question, prosecutor's comments danger. 37 38 tests incorrect, reject them. low-IQ-based appealability. States reversed, proceedings consistent 39 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal American Association Mental Retardation et al. Ellis, Michael B. Browde, Christian G. Fritz, April Land, Schwartz; National Health J. Brett Busby, Claudia Wilson Frost, Charles Kelley; Defender Service Peter Buscemi, Anthony Roth, Jeffrey Pokorak. stated majority `no retarded.'" described above, conclusion four-judge plurality; narrowest point, correctly "conclud[ing] wasnot claim," 596, (emphasis added), Meyers' 40 CHIEF dissenting. 41 2253(c)(2). "Where 2253(c) straightforward: (2000). believe wrong, dissent. 42 conducted reach'" 128 Johnson 509 350, 368 (1993)). correct result; allowed 369; Graham Collins, 506 461, 475 (1993). 43 Jurek 428 262 (1976), system, constitutional. system guides sentencing. stated: 44 "Although [v. (1978),] (1982),] prevent placing `beyond sentencer,' Graham, 475, others decisional line `there requirement unfettered discretion structure shape "in effort achieve rational equitable administration penalty."' 377 181 opinion))." 362. too abuse. noted "effec[t] sea change constitutionality former statute," 474. difficulty did. 46 There dispute circumstance, 104, 110 (1982) ("`[T]he ... [may] precluded considering, factor, offense'" deleted) 586, 604 (1978))). Constitution every conceivable relevant." 372. wrong. 47 concludes "[t]he Ante, 288. disagree. first asked "`deliberately result.'" 277. agreed, follow relevance. And, 369 (rejecting instruction necessary outside framework); 476-477 ("[R]eading [I] urges — thereby whenever offer arguable fourth `special issue' put jury: `"Does [other issues], lead imposed?"' 164 (1988),] precisely contention, irreconcilable Jurek, Franklin, 180, affirm today"). 48 second "`[i]s society?'" Here, too, very where expert medical condition prevented learning experience. 308-309. Given meant slow learner, instruction, conform behavior social norms. concluded, noted, "`follower'" rather "`leader,'" 91, environment. either short, necessarily create "two-edged sword." 324. summarily bracketed together. 49 disagree 50 Texas's framework unconstitutionally constrained violating "`"a circumstances."'" Reply II), quoting 381 (1993) dissenting)). relies earlier limned (1982), (1978). 52 previously expressed my "right" unchanneled Constitution. 356-360 part part). said stare decisis effect, requiring rationally reconciled canalized yes. "[T]he practice Furman Georgia, 408 238 (1972) (per curiam),] pronounced prohibited, Woodson 280 (1976) opinion),] renamed required." Walton Arizona, 497 639, 662 (SCALIA, 53 returned greater rationality cutting back 461 (1993), supra. joined pruning effort, noting essence today's (to channeled) forth dissent Penry." 374 (concurring opinion). notes, lower courts' entirely cases. 290-293 (dissenting Yet acknowledge existence. failings analyzing root problem. "The simultaneous pursuit contradictory objectives produces confusion." Walton, 667. 54 Although (COA) ruling, ruling merits insubstantial derives law long left behind embraced contradiction. respectfully 55 56 rely (1989), argue Texas' maintained, "so much many settled area fundamental [that] command force decisis." SCALIA based upon "insubstantial derive[d] contradiction." 294

Category: 0