Legal Document

534 U.S. 246122 S.Ct. 726151 L.Ed.2d 670 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.WILLIAM ARTHUR KELLY, PETITIONERv.SOUTH CAROLINA No. 00-9280. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued November 26, 2001Decided January 9, 2002 Syllabus After convicting petitioner Kelly murder and related crimes, a South Carolina jury was asked determine whether aggravating factors had been shown and, if so, recommend sentence death life imprisonment. At sentencing proceeding, prosecutor presented testimony knife while prison taken part an escape attempt with plans hold female guard hostage. The prosecutor's cross-examination psychologist brought out evidence Kelly's sadism at early age his current desires kill anyone who irritated him. In closing argument, spoke as "dangerous" "bloody" "butcher." Relying on holding Simmons v. Carolina, 512 154 when "a capital defendant's future dangerousness issue, only alternative imprisonment without possibility parole, due process entitles defendant 'to inform [his] parole ineligibility,' " Shafer Carolina,532 36 , 39 defense counsel instruction stating would ineligible for he received sentence. trial court refused, saying State's went character characteristics, not dangerousness. recommended affirming sentence, State held inapposite two reasons: state law provided third alternative, issue. Held: entitled under Court's statement inapplicable Carolina's new scheme because legally available mistakes relationship scheme. Although facing possible can, some circumstances, receive less than imprisonment, now makes recommendation jurors find circumstance. When they do make recommendation, their alternatives parole. Thus, court's reasoning point. also erred ruling argument cited by flatly odds conclusion. saw going behavior prison, proclivity from it, overlooked fact violent can raise strong implication generalized dangerousness, Simmons, supra, 171. A hearing propensity violence reasonably will conclude presents risk behavior, locked up free, free fugitive parolee. Evidence tendency prove future; its relevance point does disappear merely it might support inferences described terms. accentuated clear inference raised placed case within four corners Simmons. characterizations butchery retribution, did them arguments dangerous down road. Thus jury, like predecessor invited infer "that vicious predator pose continuing threat community." 176. It dispositive ask judge further eligibility, whereas juries did. judge's duty give instructions sufficient explain law, obligation exists independently question indication perplexity part. Nor there reason believe better informed Simmons's Shafer's matter eligibility. Pp. 5 11.343 S. 350, 540 E. 2d 851, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO SOUTH Souter, J., delivered Court, which Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., joined. Opinion Justice Souter Court. 1 Last Term, we reiterated (1994), ineligibility, either counsel.' 532 (2001) (quoting Ramdass Angelone, 530 156 165 (2000) (plurality opinion)). this case, Each error. 2 * 1996, indicted William extraordinarily brutal murder, kidnaping, armed robbery, possession during commission crime. convicted all charges. 3 then proceeded separate phase calling factor choose between recommendations began telling "I hope you never your lives again have experience what experiencing right now. Being thirty feet away such person. Murderer." App. 64. He present (or shank) attempt, even planning draw into cell where her See id., 129-132, 140-141. age, see 218, inclination rubbed him wrong way, 195. 4 presentation but arguments, relied requesting instruct she sought near-verbatim excerpt Code Ann. §16-3 20 (2000 Cum. Supp.): '[L]ife imprisonment' means until offender. No person sentenced eligible community supervision, release program, nor work credits, education good conduct credits reduce mandatory required law." 343 360, 856 (2001). 6 objected "I'm argue dangerous[ness]. So takes anyhow." 245. responded "the ha[d] already dangerousness" through evidence, "calling correctional officers testify [Kelly] shank, inmates testified [Kelly's] jail [and] plan take hostage." Ibid. Defense argued reinforced evidentiary indications Id., 245-246. denied instruction, 249. 7 proceeding closed butcher Batesburg," "Bloody Billy," "Billy Kid." 267-268. told "[Kelly] doesn't mental illness. He's intelligent . quick-witted. Doesn't somebody little more 269. interrupted midsentence objection, presumably raising nonetheless immediately, lady, crime 5th, unpredictable [the victim] Shirley Shealy." renew ruled objection entered.1 continued "murderers murderers. And cold-blooded one over there." 272. 8 instructed choosing should consider presence five statutory three mitigating circumstances. explained terms 'life 'death sentence' understood ordinary plain meaning." 289. But, accordance earlier ruling, say murderer end charge, renewed refusal or, stipulated issue case. 304. deliberating 43 minutes, found circumstances beyond reasonable doubt returned death, 305-307, acceded. 9 On appeal assigned error otherwise gave grounds First, followed so trigger Simmons: "[W]e agree implicate our opinion, penalty designed show adapt ." C., 362, 2d, 857. Second, relying own Shafer, 340 291, 531 524 (2000), rev'd, (2001), no application regime place trial. 364, 858. committed each We granted certiorari, 533 928 reverse. II 10 reasons order, second answered citation judgment last Term. said "Simmons [South Carolina's] death." That true charged carrying existence U.S., 49-50.2 therefore hold, 11 first ground, "at issue," unsupportable record us. failed legal accurately, considering applicability logical evidence," "injected argument." 363, 857; 54-55 (whether issue); 165, 171 opinion) (future "State specter generally" "advanc[ed] regarding [same]"); 174 (Ginsburg, concurring); 177 (O'Connor, concurring judgment). error, rather, facts: view "future case." 12 acknowledged "[e]vidence took attempts carried shank," 857, "he caught weapon participating attempts," ibid. concluded, however, sort contemplated is, demonstrating danger 'if released prison.' n. 8, 163) (emphasis added court). likely it; allowed rebut inability life, explaining ineligibility nothing risk. 362-363, 13 Even confine consideration discussed conclusion cannot accepted. To extent thought shank type Simmons," "generalized dangerousness." (And, course, says about crime, generally, mercurial thirst vengeance.) demonstrated parolee.3 14 fallacy portray thrust unrealistically limited harks back comparable mistake judge, going, "to characteristics." trying distinguish way lies failing recognize "character" "characteristic" here. This, indeed, fault general us, counts "introduc[es] society." Brief Respondent 27 original). terms.4 15 expressed "never [their] [b]eing person" Kelly. mention this, despite thrust: since were unlikely spending time 30 likes got possible. thus echoed itself, imposition act "self-defense." Both statements "implied let eventually sentence." 178 judgment) 16 more. sure considered comparison notorious serial killer, variously could somehow cordon off these call retribution. But import simply compartmentalized way. Characterizations go road.5 They complemented submissions "more frightening killer," 260, murderers," 272.6 176 17 Perhaps undeniable, us tack pursued court, claiming need "there whatsoever indicate concerned decided appropriate." 47. 44; 160. Cf. Wright, Federal Practice Procedure §485, p. 375 (3d ed. 2000) ("It charge essential questions not"). Time after appellate courts insufficiently manifested confusion; look Penry Johnson, 782 recent example. While jurors' confirmed inadequacy charges those cases, significant "[d]isplacement 'the longstanding practice availability' remains relatively development [in Carolina], 'common sense tells many know carries parole.' 52 177-178 judgment)).7 18 State, sure, emphasizes counsel's opening jury's actually imposed out," Record 1660, well closing, stressed rest light daylight again," 2060. stresses "life imprisonment" "death sentence" meanings. 19 same things explicitly noted 'die prison' 'spend[ing] natural there,' defendant.' deleted). inadequate convey understanding 53-54,8 Kelly, instruction. reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 21 ordered. 22 Rehnquist, filed dissenting Kennedy, 23 Thomas, Scalia, Notes referred portion description subsequent characterization victim. Under must decide has proven circumstance doubt. If unanimously circumstance, recommendation; term least years. §§16-3-20(B), (C) Supp.); Starnes, 312, 328, 907, 916 (2000). recommends sentences: §§16-3-20(A), (B). option. Chief Justice's dissent correctly notes eligibility bar arguing ground penalty. post, 4. plurality (1994) ("[T]he prevent poses danger"); (when "bring[s] attention" prosecution prison"). recognized [were] others prison," 5, "mislead concealing accurate information ineligibility," As says, 4-5 (dissenting opinion), substantial proportion, all, cases future. 163 (noting "prosecutors impose penalty, frequently emphasize phase"). here, entitlement shows it. answer yes, discussion. Nor, thought, elicited prosecution, "took distinct necessarily put proffered attempt. hostage underscored addition predilection escape. latter statement, fact, speaks past conduct, deportment. Whether history penology suffice require regardless details read verbatim manifest approval, sufficed, claim opportunity, conceded oral "very unlikely" permitted relevant section Code. Tr. Oral Arg. 51. 24 whom Kennedy joins, dissenting. 25 prevailing said: 26 "In available, Constitution preclude) fact. Likewise, appropriately proper "When seeks often criminal successfully deference decisions sentencing, I requires argues society future." 176-177 28 today, purporting "apply" converts tenable "truth sentencing" doctrine desirable policy, almost connection rationale 29 Texas, example, Tex. Crim. Proc. §§37.071(b) (g) itself imposing California Ramos, 463 992 (1983), system consistent Eighth Amendment punishment There weighed against factors.* §16-3-20(C) petitioner's trial, argued, found, aggravators of: kidnaping; burglary; robbery deadly weapon; larceny use physical torture. Once necessary aggravators, determining impose. meaningful term. not, invoke Simmons; enough introduced elements well. Gone basis rule future, rebuttal life. invoked, reference contention surely one, "an murder." Ante, 1. 31 today's decision departs evident rejection distinction fellow large. distinction. Immediately thus, view, society," added), "[t]he executing eliminating safety staff," 5. given, eminent sense, cellmates guards, prison. 32 test longer society; raises "implication" society. 7. difficult envision juror inference. hazard guess sheer brutality bound hands victim (who six months pregnant) behind back, stabbed times, slit throat ear ear, left dollar bills fastened bloodied body indicative Yet including episodes evil character. intended phrase dangerousness," always ineligibility. plainly not. are: 33 "(1) following crimes acts: 34 "(a) sexual degree; 35 "(b) kidnapping; "(c) burglary 37 "(d) 38 "(e) "(f) killing poison; 40 "(g) drug trafficking defined Section 44-53-370(e), 44-53-375(B), 44-53-440, 44-53-445; 41 "(h) torture; 42 "(i) dismemberment "(2) prior conviction murder. 44 "(3) offender knowingly created great public device normally hazardous 45 "(4) himself another purpose receiving money thing monetary value. 46 "(5) judicial officer, former solicitor, officer exercise official duty. 47 "(6) caused directed commit agent employee 48 "(7) federal, state, local enforcement peace employee, fireman performance duties. 49 "(8) family member listed subitems (5) (7) above intent impede retaliate official. 'Family member' spouse, parent, brother, sister, child, stands parent living official's household blood marriage. 50 "(9) Two persons murdered pursuant course conduct. 51 "(10) child eleven years under. "(11) witness potential impeding deterring crime." 53 §16 20(C) 54 Scalia 55 Justice, dissent, concludes that, "[g]one [Simmons] life." write separately continue "basis pronouncement." (Scalia, dissenting). Indeed, today solidifies my belief wrong, instance, Due Process Clause permit 56 create requirement apply number sweeping entirely foreseeable consequence 183. decisive opinion1 "if parole." One think language meant preserve most role seriously diminished discretion area, "[w]hen bring attention." added).2 Applying rule, concluded "put [Simmons'] issue" given. 177-178. 57 hinged factual inquiry "show[ed] "argue[d] issue." 176-177. Given imprecise standard, surprising easily fits universe requirement. further. making judgment, dilutes test, requiring given "tendency added). 58 expansion considers applied loosely. Placed context, neither "emphasiz[ed] crucial factor" mentioned outside prison." 181 dissenting).3 here effort amounts hairsplitting, construct inhered itself. Today, acknowledges "All" jurisprudence routine qualify, narrowly circumscribed class "reflec[t] consciousness materially 'depraved' guilty murder," Godfrey Georgia, 446 420 433 (1980) opinion). Lowenfield Phelps, 484 231 246 (1988) ("Here, 'narrowing function' performed guilt provision specific inflict bodily harm upon person.'"). hard imagine how, depravity mind displays "tendency" comfort technically tendency, prosecutor, ante, constitute showing dangerousness? eviscerates recognition Simmons' generally States." 59 Today's allows meddle guise so. believe, qualification, "it micromanage proceedings." (Thomas, preferable "matters leaves 60 For reasons, respectfully dissent. Blackmun's joined Members votes sustain judgment. Concurring O'Connor wrote O'Dell Netherland, 521 151 158-159 (1997). used broader language, "prosecution allude[s]" "advanc[es] 164, Turning opinions relied, comment concerning 'what [petitioner] midst' (as imply) response evidence." 181-182. Similarly, verdict 'act self-defense' came admonition avoid emotional responses enter rational verdict." 182. indicates, "obviously alluded, persons, specifically walls, members individual, wherever [T]he invite mislead jury."

Classification Label: 0