Document: 456 U.S. 410 102 S.Ct. 1856 72 L.Ed.2d 222 Walter ZANT, Warden, Petitioner,v.Alpha Otis O'Daniel STEPHENS. No. 81-89. Argued Feb. 24, 1982. Decided May 3, PER CURIAM. 1 The respondent was convicted of murder in a Georgia Superior Court. His sentencing jury found the following statutory aggravating circumstances:1 2 "(1) that offense committed by person with prior record conviction capital felony, Code Ann. § 27-2534.1(b)(1); (2) who has substantial history serious assaultive criminal convictions, 27-2534.1(b)(1), supra; and, (3) had escaped from lawful custody peace officer or place confinement, 27-2534.1(b)(9)." Stephens v. Hopper, 241 Ga. 596, 597-598, 247 S.E.2d 92, 94, cert. denied, 439 991, 99 593, 58 667 (1978). 3 imposed death penalty. On direct appeal, Supreme Court affirmed. State, 237 259, 227 261, 429 986, 97 508, 50 599 (1976). authority Arnold 236 534, 224 386 (1976), it set aside second circumstance jury. It upheld sentence, however, on ground "that sole jury," whereas case under review "the evidence supports jury's findings other circumstances, and consequently sentence is not impaired." Ga., at 261-262, S.E.2d, 263. 4 After exhausting his state postconviction remedies, supra, applied for writ habeas corpus Federal District Relief denied court, but United States Appeals Fifth Circuit "reverse[d] district court's denial relief insofar as le[ft] standing [respondent's] . remanded further proceedings." 631 F.2d 397, 407 (1980), modified, 648 446 (1981). We granted State's petition certiorari. 454 814, 90, 70 82. 5 In Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 96 2909, 49 859 we penalty statute because standards procedures forth therein promised to alleviate significant degree concern Furman 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 (1972), be capriciously freakish manner. recognized constitutionality sentences ultimately would depend Court's construing reviewing consistently this concern. See U.S., 198, 201-206, S.Ct., 2937, 2938-2940 (opinion Stewart, POWELL, STEVENS, JJ.); id., 211-212, 222-224, 2943, 2947-2949 (WHITE, J., concurring judgment). Our did lead us examine all its nuances. only after law relating clarified concrete cases confronted addressed more specific constitutional challenges Coker 433 584, 2861, 53 982 (1977); Presnell 14, 235, 207 (1978); Green 442 95, 2150, 60 738 (1979); Godfrey 420, 100 1759, 64 398 (1980). 6 Today, are asked decide whether court constitutionally may sustain long least one plurality circumstances valid supported evidence. asserted authority.2 Its construction clear: "Where two jury, failure does so taint proceedings invalidate based thereon." Gates 244 587, 599, 261 349, 358 (1979), 445 938, 1332, 63 772 7 Despite clarity rule review, there considerable uncertainty about state-law premises rule.3 never explained rationale position. implicit determination multiple superfluous, assume role when recommended legally erroneous instructions. Court, Attorney General offered understanding law: must first find have been established beyond reasonable doubt. existence threshold finding authorizes consider imposing penalty; serves bridge takes general class murders narrower offenses legislature determined warrant making possible punishment, then makes separate should imposed. bases "not upon before aggravation mitigation punishment which ha[s] introduced both phases trial." Brief Petitioner 13. 8 view foregoing uncertainty, premature such determinations, any others might conceive basis position, undermine confidence expressed capital-sentencing system, understood then, avoid arbitrary capricious imposition otherwise pass muster. Suffice say conclusion relevant issue hand. 9 certain will questions certification Ga.Code 24-4536 (Supp.1980).4 invoke certify question: What support impaired invalidity jury? 10 Clerk directed transmit certificate, signed THE CHIEF JUSTICE official seal well briefs filed simultaneously copies certificate attorneys respective parties. 11 ordered. 12 Justice MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 13 Six years ago 193, 2934, (1976) (joint opinion JJ.), declared: 14 "Juries invariably given careful instructions how apply they authorized merits lawsuit. virtually unthinkable follow course legal system traditionally operated precedents fixed rules law. When given, retrial often required. quite simply hallmark our juries carefully adequately guided their deliberations." (Footnote omitted). 15 today's decision, majority intimates post hoc highest remedy fact improperly instructed respect very factors save unconstitutionality. supra. Because I cannot see response could justify case, dissent. 16 * adhere my cruel unusual prohibited Eighth Fourteenth Amendments. 231, 2973. Even if believed believe Stephens' vacated courts resentencing. II 17 opinion, remanding resentencing compelled decisions upholding statute, well-recognized principles appellate review. Therefore, infirmity inherent respondent's some future can do nothing alter part consideration an unconstitutional circumstance. 18 Under law, appropriate "[w]hen shall appear involved proceeding propositions laws State determinative said cause no clear controlling State." 24-4536(a) (Supp.1980) (emphasis added). attempts bring within ambit procedure indicating "[i]t instructions." Ante, 415. requests clarify jury." 416-417. 19 wholeheartedly agree know answers these questions. recognizes possess information "[t]he position" reaffirmed relied declared invalid. submit, alone ignorance. There absolutely indication judge aware than today. Indeed, certifying concedes impossible anyone time sentenced death, "there precedents" issues. Given treatment defendant received particularly instructions, understand answer certified question possibly "determinative" case. 20 struck down penalties pursuant statute. Shortly thereafter, Legislature enacted current This provides guilty offense. During phase, trial instruct jury1 "any [10] evidence." 27-2534.1(b) warranted submitted writing used during deliberations. 27-2534.1(c). If recommends "shall designate doubt." Ibid. finds doubt, required impose Bowen 492, 246 322 verdict unanimous. Miller 557, 229 376 bound recommendation life death. §§ 26-3102, 27-2514 21 held scheme satisfied guarantee against punishment. reaching conclusion, principal opinions heavily served guide discretion. joint announcing judgment Stewart emphasized members little, any, previous experience sentencing," 192, 2934 deliberations, those provided Model Penal Code, catalogs " 'the main weighed each other' Id., (quoting ALI, 201.6, Comment p. 71 (Tent.Draft 9, 1959)) original). That new requirement because, through focus attention particularized nature crime characteristics individual defendant." 206, 2940 WHITE, joined REHNQUIST, judgment, placed even stronger emphasis circumstances: 22 "The plainly made effort exercise discretion, while same permitting dispense mercy too intangible write into As types become narrowly defined limited peculiarly reason aggravating-circumstance requirement, becomes expect juries—even discretion penalty—will portion defined." 222, 2948 (first 23 428, 1765, (1980) (plurality BLACKMUN, protecting reliance (b)(7), allows "was outrageously wantonly vile, horrible inhuman torture, depravity mind, aggravated battery victim." 27-2534.1(b)(7) 24 found: "There few words, alone, implies restraint infliction sentence. A ordinary sensibility fairly characterize almost every 'outrageously inhuman.' 428-429, 1765. Section construed broadly enough encompass murder, "no principled way distinguish imposed, many not." 433, 1767. interpretation (b)(7) "may subscribed," that, hold "their preconceptions were dispelled judge's 429, guidance, 25 view, reasoning requires he resentenced properly conceded since unconstitutional. also undisputed unable circumstances. Cf. 16, 236, argues, evidence, reaffirm argument flies face theGodfrey crucial decision 26 Moreover, patently contrary settled principle "if several grounds conviction, proves unconstitutional, thereafter determine ground, aside." 406 (CA5 1980) (case below); Stromberg California, 283 359, 51 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931). Since 1931, declined speculate particular reached absence instruction. See, e.g., 367-368, 535. Accord, Bachellar Maryland, 397 564, 570-571, 90 1312, 1315-1316, 570 (1970); Street New York, 394 576, 585-588, 89 1354, 1362-1363, 572 (1969); Yates States, 354 298, 311-312, 77 1064, 1073, 1356 (1957). light consistent recognition qualitatively different imprisonment," Woodson North Carolina, 280, 305, 2978, 2991, 944 see, Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 117-118, 869, 878, (1982) (O'CONNOR, concurring), certainly engage speculation here. Yet, recommend adopt bald pronouncement "[w]here thereon," influenced presence circumstance.2 27 Recognizing normally arguably stand, petitioner amicus curiae brief3 attempt line arguing matter construction, doubt irrelevant ultimate Specifically, argues term "aggravating circumstance" actually entirely meanings, meaning representing task perform. First, circumstances" This, penalty, impact determination, "evidence aggravation" According petitioner, performs free influence "legislative guidelines" "focus[ing] defendant," prevent being freakishly 206-207, 2940-2941 JJ.). 28 Putting side plausibility petitioner's statute,4 obvious ex facto mandate Sandstrom Montana, 510, 2450, 61 39 (1979). Sandstrom, "deliberate homicide," which, Montana prove "purposefully knowingly" caused victim. 512, 2453. At close '[t]he presumes intends consequences voluntary acts.' 513, objected instruction unconstitutionally shifted burden proof intent. shifting nevertheless challenged interpretation, production rather persuasion. 513-514, 2453-2454. argued effect presumption conclusive 516, 2455. 29 unanimously5 rejected use narrowing court. While acknowledging final weight [challenged] instruction." 516-517, 2455 Instead, "a juror misled 517, assuming presumption, minds "some jurors," persuasion-shifting means discount possibility Sandstrom's jurors proceed latter interpretations." 519, 2457 "Because David interpreted constituting either burden-shifting presumption," 524, 2459, inconsistent opinion.6 30 presently presents rejecting relevance saving construction. By explicitly adopted courts. acknowledged only, most plausible, "reasonable juror" conclude she special weigh them mitigating deciding Certainly Members assumption. 197-198, 221-222, 2947; 436-437, 1769 (MARSHALL, judgment); Drake Zant, 449 999, 1001, 101 541, 66 297 (STEWART, dissenting certiorari). 31 subscribed role, Godfrey, everything charge highlighted importance Not writing, turn 27-2534.1(c) (1978) discussed 420. provide considering judge, should, could, discard list officially sanctioned 32 Absent shred cognizant decisively affected circumstance." F.2d, 406. precisely guard uniformly refused uphold ground.7 423. Furthermore, 189, 2932, "where afforded body grave human taken spared, suitably minimize risk wholly action." alsoFurman (1972). assure "suitably directed,"8 34 am essential agreement views MARSHALL Part hold, 35 reversed remanded, thus leaving lacks resentence. leave open—also decide—whether harmless error follows: "Gentlemen Jury, your hands Murder, duty make determinations Now arriving regard you throughout you. You facts presented extinuation [sic], arguments Defense. Murder punished imprisonment life, trying One, Capital convictions. Two, mind Three, confinement. These stated out deliberations phase They here, send fixes electrocution foreman, proven Unless fix recite exact words verdict, reciting state, hand, result defendant. necessary find, prison. Now, whatever responsibility regarding please out, Mr. Foreman, immediately below rendered. Be sure dated bears signature foreman. Once again arrived let know. receive published here open Please retire now case." App. 18-19. Stevens 698, 709, 278 398, (1981); 598, 606, 272 475, 485 450 936, 1402, 67 372 Hamilton 264, n. 1, 271 173, 174, 1103, 900, 829 Brooks 262, 263, 172 451 921, 2000, 68 312 Collins 352, Dampier 245 882, 883, 268 350, 337, 161 (1980); Burger 458, 461-462, 265 796, 799-800, 988, 2975, 847 Last Term, assumptions meaning—and constitutionality—of grant certiorari vacate judgments sentences—premised circumstance—were disposition, position need remand reconsideration Godfrey. 1000, 541. Dissenting certiorari, "could prohibit He "only what concluded considered death." dissenting, disposition "would allow instance sustained without validity 1002, 542. power sustains although power, disturb situations." "When concerning propositions." bench trials, factors. To date, still returned subsequently invalidated Williams 274 Ark. 11-13, 621 S.W.2d 686, 687-688 Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 106-108, 282 439, 448-449 Moore, 614 348, 351-352 (Tenn.1981); Hopkinson 632 P.2d 79, 171-172 (Wyo.1981). Cook 369 So.2d 1251, 1255-1257 (Ala.1979). Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Utah brief behalf petitioner. interesting note Alabama Carolina already implicitly urged amici. 2, raise Gregg. JUSTICE, intentional murder. reasoned tainted viewed defendant's "purpose," solely "knowingly" knowingly," alternative sustained. 525, 2460. Relying (1931), speculation, "even ignored acted knowingly, do." 526, 2460 similarly tell yet undisclosed partially (1969), precludes inference appellant's [an ground], reverse both" ground. 1363 majority's implication give opportunity "assume instructions," ante, 415, conclusion. affirming purport authority. Nor argue action permissible today, always assumed trier sentence." Willis Balkcom, 926, 928, 2003, 2005, 315 (1981) JJ., event, "reviewing rational instructed; exercised known law." 437, 1769,

Category: 0