Document: 486 U.S. 356 108 S.Ct. 1853 100 L.Ed.2d 372 Gary D. MAYNARD, Warden, et al., Petitioners,v.William T. CARTWRIGHT. No. 87-519. Argued April 19, 1988. Decided June 6, Syllabus Respondent, a disgruntled ex-employee of married couple, entered the couple's home, shot wife twice with shotgun, and killed husband, then slit wife's throat stabbed her twice. Respondent was tried in an Oklahoma court found guilty first-degree murder husband. The jury imposed death penalty upon finding that two statutory aggravating circumstances, including circumstance "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel," had been established, these circumstances outweighed mitigating evidence. Court Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal, later denial state collateral relief. Federal District denied respondent's habeas corpus petition, but reversed, holding words "heinous," "atrocious," "cruel" do not their face offer sufficient guidance to escape strictures Furman v. Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346. also ruled courts adopted limiting construction cured infirmity, concluding utilized by appellate court, which simply declared facts case were so plainly cruel" warranted, itself unconstitutionally vague under Eighth Amendment Constitution. therefore enjoined execution sentence, without prejudice further proceedings for redetermination sentence. Held: As applied this case, vague. Pp. 360-366. (a) State's contention factual may, themselves, characterize killing as represents improper, Due Process Clause approach vagueness fails recognize rationale Court's cases. Under Furman, supra, its progeny, proper analysis claim focuses whether challenged adequately informs what it must find order impose penalty, leaves unchanneled discretion make arbitrary capricious decision. Godfrey 446 420, 1759, 64 398, analysis, controls case. language provision gave no more here than did "outrageously wantonly vile, horrible, inhuman" held unconstitutional Godfrey. Moreover, Oklahoma's addition word "especially" limited overbreadth factor wantonly" "vile" considered Furthermore, court's indistinguishable from action Georgia Godfrey, failed cure jury's unfettered satisfy Amendment. 360—364. (b) complaint erroneously torture serious physical abuse is only constitutionally acceptable unfounded, since, although noted cases such requirement be curative, expressly refrained directing State adopt any particular construction. should stand because another, unchallenged sustain sentence unpersuasive, when decided, procedure attempting save one several invalid unsupported evidence, vacated automatically life-imprisonment significance decisions, issued after Appeals' decision below, torture-or-serious-physical-abuse circumstance, longer set aside where inapplicable, decided first instance appropriate 364-366. 822 F.2d 1477 (CA10 1987), affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. BRENNAN, filed concurring opinion, MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 366. Susan S. Dickerson, City, Okl., petitioners. Mandy Welch, Norman, respondent. Justice WHITE 1 On May 4, 1982, eating evening meal Muskogee County, Oklahoma, Hugh Charma Riddle watched television living room. At some point, Mrs. left room proceeding towards bathroom she encountered respondent Cartwright standing hall shotgun. She struggled gun legs. man, whom recognized ex-employee, proceeded he Riddle. dragged herself down bedroom use telephone. however, bedroom, Riddle's throat, hunting knife Riddles given him Christmas, house. survived called police. arrested days charged murder. 2 charged. State, relying three sought penalty. them have established: first, defendant "knowingly created great risk person"; second, cruel." Okla.Stat., Tit. 21, §§ 701.12(2) (4) (1981). Finding 695 P.2d 548, cert. denied, 473 911, 105 3538, 87 661 (1985), 708 592 474 1073, 106 837, 88 808 (1986). federal grounds. rejected each them, rested wholly part namely, overbroad A panel Tenth Circuit affirmed, 802 1203 (1986), rehearing en banc granted concerning circumstance. 3 being unchallenged. But reweigh effort penalty; rather, imposed. "no curing appeal sentencer's consideration circumstance." 1477, 1482 (1987). It necessary consider challenge circumstances. unanimously sustained challenge. stated our judgment 346 (1972). Nor, view, infirmity relied affirm concluded "unconstitutionally vague" F.2d, at 1483, 1492. accordingly, enjoined, "without conviction." Id., 4 Petitioner review Circuit's Because conflict between importance constitutional issue orderly administration death-penalty statutes, we certiorari, issue. 484 1003, 693, 98 645 (1988). We Appeals. 5 Appeals, care, reviewed evolution interpretation up Its reading while attitude killer, manner killing, suffering victim relevant support "refused hold those factors present 1491. Rather, all made out Ibid. normally defer appeals law, see reason accept statements about law especially since does 6 takes conclusion approach, employed interpreting applying unconstitutional. insists there are affirmance proper. understand argument, governing criminal if could said reasonable certainty fall within reach Or put another way, person would covered statute, even fail give adequate notice other well. 7 difficulty argument presents construing Objections rest lack notice, hence may overcome specific persons know conduct risk. Vagueness challenges statutes threatening First interests examined light hand; statute judged as-applied basis. United States Powell, 423 87, 92-93, 96 316, 319-320, 46 228 (1975); Mazurie, 419 544, 550, 95 710, 714, 42 706 Palmer City Euclid, 402 91 1563, 29 (1971) (per curiam ); National Dairy Corp., 29, 32-33, 36, 83 594, 597-598, 599-600, 9 561 (1963). Claims directed defined capital punishment analyzed characteristically assert inform juries they result kind open-ended 8 Georgia's then-standardless manner; principled means provided distinguish received not. E.g., id., 310, S.Ct., 2762-2763 (Stewart, concurring); 311, 2763 (WHITE, concurring). Since insisted channeling imposing fundamental sufficiently minimizing action. Gregg 428 153, 189, 206-207, 2909, 2940-2941, 49 859 (1976) (opinion Stewart, STEVENS, JJ.); 220-222, 2947-2948 judgment); Spaziano Florida, 468 447, 462, 104 3154, 3163, 82 340 (1984); Lowenfield Phelps, 231, 244, 546, ----, 568 398 (1980), very here, central tenet law. permitted sentenced offense "was outrageously horrible inhuman involved torture, depravity mind, aggravated battery victim." 422, 1762. instructed verdict recited inhuman." Supreme affirming used "not objectionable" evidence supported presence thus failing rule whether, facts, victim. 426-427, 1763-1764. Although spoken terms absence factors, review, application unconstitutional, saying: 10 "In before us, has based 'outrageously inhuman.' There nothing few words, alone, implies inherent restraint infliction ordinary sensibility fairly almost every Such view fact, members subscribed. If so, preconceptions dispelled trial judge's sentencing instructions. These meaning [the circumstance's] terms. In [that circumstance] can subject sheer speculation." 428-429, 1764-1765 (footnote omitted). 11 insufficient apply previously 429, 432, 1765, 1766-1767. This that, applied, way imposed, many not." 433, 1767. Cf. Proffitt 242, 254-256, 2960, 2967-2968, 913 (1976). submission surrounding murder, however shocking might be, enough narrowing principle warrant imposition 12 think quite right First, issue—"especially cruel"—gave returned somehow guides discretion, term "heinous" not, untenable. To say something heinous" merely suggests individual jurors determine just whatever means, honestly believe unjustified, intentional taking human life heinous." 1764-1765. Likewise, limit factor. 13 Second, events "adequately finding" commands motive getting victims, lay wait heard blast wounded his wife, again brutally attacked surviving attempted conceal deeds, steal victims' belongings. P.2d, 554. cruel supportable 14 complains, valid construed require error. agree requirement. sufficed validate otherwise curative here. 1491-1492. acceptable. 15 When attempt said, 1482. time, dispute it, cannot faulted undertaking themselves refused do. 16 true restricted "heinous, murders present. Stouffer 742 562 same necessarily 564. See Castro 745 394, 408-409 (1987), 485 971, 1248, 99 17 What decisions matter decide instance. Like 18 Affirmed. 19 MARSHALL joins, concurring. 20 I join except insofar judgment, proceedings, preclude reimposition Adhering my unusual prohibited Fourteenth Amendments, 227, 2950, 2973, (1976), re-sentencing circumscribed reimpose

Category: 0