Legal Document

512 U.S. 154114 S.Ct. 2187129 L.Ed.2d 133 Jonathan Dale SIMMONS, Petitionerv.SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 92-9059. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 18, 1994. Decided June 17, Syllabus * During penalty phase petitioner's South Carolina trial, State argued that his future dangerousness was a factor for jury to consider when deciding whether sentence him death or life imprisonment murder an elderly woman. In rebuttal, petitioner presented evidence limited women and thus there no reason expect violent acts from in prison. However, court refused give proposed instruction under state law he ineligible parole. When asked by carried with it possibility parole, instructed not parole reaching its verdict terms were be understood have their plain ordinary meaning. The returned sentence. On appeal, concluded regardless trial court's refusal inform sentencing about defendant's ineligibility might ever error, given satisfied substance request charge on such ineligibility. Held: judgment is reversed, case remanded. --- S.C. ----, 427 S.E.2d 175 (1993), reversed Justice BLACKMUN, joined STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, concluded: 1. Where at issue, prohibits release due process requires informed defendant ineligible. An individual cannot executed basis information which had opportunity deny explain. Gardner v. Florida, 430 349, 362, 97 1197, 1206-1207, 51 393. Petitioner's reasonably may believed could released if executed. To extent this misunderstanding pervaded deliberations, effect creating false choice between period incarceration. apprise so crucial determination, particularly alluded argument, reconciled Court's well-established precedents interpreting Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Skipper Carolina, 476 1, 106 1669, 90 Pp. ____. 2. meaning did satisfy charge, since nothing dispel reasonable jurors way any particular defines "life imprisonment." O'CONNOR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE KENNEDY, where puts only available alternative without entitles jury—either argument instruction—that If prosecution does argue dangerousness, appropriately decide proper issue jury's consideration even Here, rejection recent development displacing longstanding practice availability, common sense dictates many know carries 2200-2201. J., announced delivered opinion, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. opinion judgment, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, dissenting THOMAS, David I. Bruck, Columbia, SC, petitioner. Richard A. Harpootlian, respondent. BLACKMUN GINSBURG join. 1 This presents question Clause Fourteenth Amendment violated instruct capital We hold 2 3 July 1990, beat woman, Josie Lamb, her home Carolina. week before scheduled begin, pleaded guilty first degree burglary two counts criminal sexual conduct connection prior assaults women. pleas resulted convictions offenses, those rendered convicted subsequent violent-crime offense. S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-640 (Supp.1993). 4 Prior selection, advised judge "[o]bviously [was] going ask you exclude mention throughout trial." App. Over defense counsel's objection, granted prosecution's motion order barring asking during voir dire regarding Under order, counsel forbidden subject expressly prohibited questioning prospective as they "life" law.1 After 3-day Ms. Lamb. 5 phase, brought forward mitigating tending show behavior reflected serious mental disorders stemmed years neglect extreme physical abuse endured adolescent. While some disagreement among witnesses condition properly deemed "disorder," both agreed posed continuing danger 6 closing fixing appropriate punishment. jury, said prosecution, "what do [petitioner] now our midst." Id., 110. further urged would "a response society someone who threat. Your will act self-defense." Ibid. 7 Petitioner sought rebut generalized presenting that, unique psychological problems, women, violence once isolated prison setting. support introduced testimony female medical assistant supervising officers Richland County jail been held trial. All three testified adapted well pretrial confinement behaved manner toward other inmates staff. also offered expert L. Boyle, clinical social worker former correctional employee, reviewed observed institutional adjustment. Mr. Boyle expressed view based background current functioning, successfully adapt sentenced imprisonment. 8 Concerned understand imprisonment" carry case, clarify point defining term accordance (Supp.1993).2 buttress request, proffered, outside presence conclusively establishing behalf, attorneys Department Corrections Probation, Parole Pardons offender position fact law. challenge Instead, elicit admissions notwithstanding ineligibility, receive holiday furloughs forms early release. Even effort unsuccessful, however, cross-examination revealed regulations prohibit programs work-release supervised furloughs, murderer serving furloughed otherwise reason. 9 then into evidence, results statewide public-opinion survey conducted University Carolina's Institute Public Affairs. few days showed 7.1 percent all jury-eligible adults questioned firmly inmate actually required spend rest See 152-154. Almost half surveyed paroled within 20 years; nearly three-quarters thought certainly occur less than 30 years. More 75 indicated called upon make capital-sentencing decision jurors, amount time "extremely important" "very choosing death. 155. 10 public's apparent likelihood vote simply because believed, mistakenly, eventually 11 opposed instruction, urging "not allow . anything concerning parole." 37. Citing Torrence, 305 45, 406 315 (1991), requested instruction. alternatively following instruction: 12 "I these sentences mean what say. That is, recommend Simmons death, If, hand, imprisonment, penitentiary balance natural life. 13 "In your are speculate I just told you, exactly happen defendant, depending is." 162. 14 but similar inquired eligibility. 15 deliberating minutes, sent note single question: "Does imposition parole?" 145. gave 16 "You eligibility verdict. Do consideration. plan [sic] meaning." 146. 17 Twenty-five minutes after receiving court, courtroom 18 appeal Court, judge's provide accurate Eighth Amendment.3 declined reach merits challenges. With one dissenting, error circumstances, "satisfie[d] [petitioner's] ineligibility," denial constitutional case. Simmons, 175, 179 (1993). certiorari, 114 57, 126 27 II 19 execution person "on explain." U.S., S.Ct., 1207. grievous misperception encouraged State's repeated suggestion pose Three times law; denied. succeeded securing ground, least part, while same concealing true noncapital alternative, namely, meant think clear denied process.4 has approved recognizing bears determinations made justice system. Jurek Texas, 428 262, 275, 96 2950, 2958, 49 929 (1976) (plurality opinion) (noting "any authority must predict person's probable engages determining punishment impose"); California Ramos, 463 992, 1003, n. 103 3446, 3454, 77 1171 (1983) (explaining "the potential reform counsels against desirability society"). 21 Although statutes mandate sentencing, aggravation relating statutory aggravating circumstances. Barclay 939, 948-951, 3418, 3424-3426, 1134 opinion); 1008, 3457 ("Once finds falls legislatively defined category persons eligible free myriad factors determine punishment"). Thus, prosecutors like impose penalty, frequently emphasize phase; urge public Eisenberg & Wells, Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions Capital Cases, 79 Cornell L.Rev. 22 Arguments ordinarily inappropriate guilt convict poses danger; nor likely relevant each element alleged offense proved beyond doubt. But responsibilities issues irrelevant guilt-innocence determination step foreground require phase. character, history, capacity, background, age factors, addition Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 110, 102 869, 874, 71 (1982); 3424-3426. 23 assessing actual duration indisputably relevant. Holding constant, entirely greater threat not. Indeed, assurance nondangerousness never B 24 (1986), admit good majority stressed "relevant mitigation punishment," admissible Amendment, id., 4, 1671, citing 604, 2964-2965, (1978) opinion), noted conclusion compelled explained relies prediction requesting elemental principles operate admission rebuttal. 5, 9, 1673 (Powell, judgment) ("[B]ecause allowed used him," clearly process). 25 reached 393 (1977). presentence report therefore rebut. A plurality sending man explain" fundamental notions process. principle reaffirmed Skipper, compels today. Crane Kentucky, 683, 690, 2142, 2146, 636 (1986) (due " 'a meaningful present complete defense' ") (citation omitted); Ake 470 68, 83-87, 105 1087, 1096-1098, 84 53 (1985) (where psychiatric proceeding, indigent assistance psychiatrist defense). 26 Like defendants Gardner, prevented rebutting considered, relied, imposing raised specter generally, thwarted efforts demonstrate contrary prosecutor's intimations, thus, view, society.5 logic effectiveness naturally depended legally remain afforded focus attention whether, prison, futile, repeatedly left evaluating straight answer requested. C amici contend entitled informing inherently misleading.6 Essentially, exigencies legislative reform, commutation, clemency, escape society, Insofar targeted specific wording requested, misplaced. ("If [the defendant] life," 162) ruled plain-language opposes simple parole-ineligibility hypothetical developments, little force. Respondent admits accurate. Certainly, more all, leaves means something else. 28 asserted accuracy concerns undermined large ineligibility.7 juries seem rely, here, proposition (1983), purely matters law.8 29 It Ramos stands broad we generally defer should sentencing. available, how knowledge availability affect speculative, shall lightly second-guess conclude truthful pardon, like, kept "greater protection States'] system Federal Constitution requires." 1014, 3460. Concomitantly, arguing rests part premise dangerous future, necessarily undercut society. Because allows "deny showing plainly bring court. 1206-1207. III 31 There remains considered correct concluding S.E.2d, 179, responded query stating "plain basically received disagree. 32 can hardly most lack precise States. For much country's mainstay federal regimes, every (whether years) shorter stated term. Lowenthal, Mandatory Sentencing Laws: Undermining Effectiveness Determinate Reform, 81 Calif.L.Rev. 61 (1993) (describing mandatory laws). Increasingly, legislatures enacted laws severe provisions, yet contours penal vary State. Cheatwood, Life-Without-Parole Sanction: Its Current Status Research Agenda, 34 Crime Delinq. 43, 48 (1988). Chandler impossible ignore reality, known 'reasonable juror,' historically, life-term Smith, 298 482, 489-490, 381 724, 728 (1989) (opinion dissenting), cert. denied, 494 1060, 110 1536, 108 775 (1990).9 33 directing ordinary" imprisonment."10 Boyde California, 370, 380, 1190, 1198, 316 (1990) "reasonable applied challenged prevents constitutionally evidence," true, points out, admonished "you parole" "is consideration." Far ensuring misled, suggested unstated reason, blind fact. Undoubtedly, confusing frustrating arguments obvious relevance formidable task. presumed follow instructions, see Greer Miller, 483 756, 766, 7, 107 3102, 3109, 618 (1987), recognized circumstances risk not, cannot, instructions great, consequences failure vital practical human limitations ignored." Bruton States, 391 123, 135, 88 1620, 1627, (1968). Beck Alabama, 447 625, 642, 100 2382, 2392, 65 392 (1980); 950, 3425 ("Any calls exercise judgment. neither possible desirable whom entrusts important vacuum, experiences"). 35 considering rights still honored. supra, and, reasons, issued IV 36 create dilemma advancing while, time, preventing learning accordingly remanded proceedings. 37 ordered. 38 STEVENS joins, concurring. 39 join BLACKMUN's right write separately believe additional, related today's decision, 40 capable reasoned moral rather lesser sentence, ought imposed. imposes heightened standard "for reliability case," Woodson North 280, 305, 2978, 2991, 944 Stewart, Powell, JJ.); also, Godfrey Georgia, 446 420, 427-428, 1759, 1764-1765, 64 398 Mills Maryland, 486 367, 383-384, 1860, 1869-1870, 384 provision "accurate [as] indispensable prerequisite live die," Gregg 153, 190, 2909, 2933, 859 JJ.), invalidates "procedural rules ten[d] diminish determination," 638, 2390, (1980). 41 need mandates recognition legal describe (or recommendations) consider, making alternatives. whenever juror misunderstand term, demand meaning, vacated having "arbitrarily capriciously" "wantonly freakishly imposed." Furman 408 238, 249, 92 2726, 2732, 346 (1972) (Douglas, concurring); 310, 2763 (Stewart, concurring). 42 Members holding least, permitted apply, ante, ____ post, (GINSBURG, (O'CONNOR, judgment), accept general rule law, effectively substitute statements 43 "[A]rguments weight usually billed advance viewed advocates; latter, often recognized, definitive binding law." 384, 1200, omitted). 44 straightforward duty 45 persuasively demonstrates context, ____, tell means, requests. moreover, asking, Ante, 10. here easy controlled statute. no. shows best confusing, "equivocal direction basic issue," Bollenbach 326 607, 613, 66 402, 405, L.Ed. 350 (1946), "there way" rights. Boyde, 1198. By withholding life-without-parole diminished 46 are, course, accused requires, 3460, less. here. set forth whose join, reversed. 47 readily resolved core requirement process, heard. 2146-2147, (1986). urges cause heard argument. full fair, include indeed accord O'CONNOR's essential point. ____; As subsidiary matter, clarifies met intelligently conveyed jury; dictate herself, counsel, read say otherwise.* And parole"; ordered refrain saying 55-57. 50 understandings, concur KENNEDY 52 "Capital proceedings course Clause," Clemons Mississippi, 738, 746, 1441, 1447, 725 (1990), hallmarks adversary ability meet him. Cf. cases, rely seeking penalty. 1002-1003, (1983). "[w]here specifically 'on explain' [requires introduce point]." quoting 1207, (1977) 9-10, 1673-1674 judgment). physically sexually assaulted women—one them own grandmother—before killing fourth. At vicious predator community. prosecutor role midst," jury: "Your Ibid.; 102, 112. preyed class victims encounter behind bars. 121; 3. stood chance succeeding, convinced stay §§ 16-3-20(A) (Supp.1993), precluded 54 Unlike factual disprove 3, 1670; 10-11, 1674-1675 operation community previously approval, "[m]any courts improper informed—through instruction—of 1013, 30, preclude) Likewise, 55 seeks agree attention—by court—as responding dangerousness. despite deference decisions cases argues future. Of prison; (though not) like. 1001-1009, 3453-3458. 56 put jury. "[t]he pla[i]n meaning," 146, below ineligibility." (and Government) displaces tells us come pass meaning" felt life-sentenced Moreover, prosecutor, referring "self-defense," strongly implied let out jury—by either proceeding communicate entitled. 58 THOMAS dissenting. 59 Today's seems enough consider. purports be. scheme permit material incompatible national traditions procedure violates really pronouncement, near uniform people, jurisprudence Court. 60 respect discuss practice, parties addressed traditional relatively uninformative regard new schemes imposed jurisprudence. overwhelming sure, choices parole," itself conveys available. eight merely "death," variation (parole eligible) "life," "death"1—so date choice. choose (unspecified) alone keeping Four widely separated parts country course,2 practice.3 contrast, ten arguably employ which, according opinions, requires.4 picture far short demonstrating shared temporary American consensus. jurisprudence: opinions O'CONNOR Amendment's guarantee Process, "cruel unusual punishments" prohibition, Amendment. cf. (SOUTER, applicable indicates "sentenced explain.' Both try description, fit. 62 paint record different story. Rather emphasizing factor, nature crimes: crime brutal 79-year-old woman home, crimes confessed petitioner, rapes beatings grandmother. am sure sheer depravity crimes, fear induced justice. 63 Not only, emphasized, mentioned. undertook prevent broader all: "Obviously, listen carefully solicitor contravenes circumstance. recognize propensity. solicitor, example, indicate jailed encompassed submit negate record." 56-57. record, followed admonition more. portions final First, stress statement, (as imply) evidence. Read statement case: 67 "The [i]s diversion. It's putting blame father, grandmother, whoever else can, spreading avoid personal responsibility. came deprived background. didn't breaks helps shape someone. concerned got shaped. 68 seize comment "an end emotional responses enter rational verdict: 69 shouldn't anger. catharsis. eight-year-old kid [testifying mitigation] gruesome grotesque handiwork [petitioner]. 109-110. 70 reference "self-defense" obviously alluded, jurors' persons, walls, members individual, wherever bear mind lookout point), invite parole—he mislead adopts overturn goes necessary counteract prosecutorial misconduct (a disposition agree). sweeping this: overrides limiting admissibility appears go further, requiring prescription. strike factors—probative value, prejudice, reliability, confusion, others—that admissible. wisdom [post-sentencing contingencies] States." "[T]he retain 'the authority' relevant." 11, 1674, One leaving sensible code invented piecemeal. Each item isolation, place whole. Preventing introducing parolability well. changed defendants, evenhandedness demands change able if, ladies gentlemen parole) walking streets again years! Many favor argument—but prefer call unavailability availability. force legislators difficult unless evidentiary ideal, high threshold unconstitutionality. 72 low constructs today reconcile almost simultaneous Romano 2004, ---- (1994). There, holds inquiry admitted contravention "whether infected unfairness render process." 2012 (slip op., 11). why unconstitutionality criterion excluding demanding recites admitting violation law: "fundamental unfairness." "fundamentally unfair" assuredly notion "just case" me quite far-fetched. taken grounds altered (which amended) scenario achieves ultimate far-fetchedness added uncontroverted officials discretionary regulations) inmates. 16-17. 73 parolability, compel nonparolable, parolable life-sentence murderers paroled, 70; escapes rare; though years, recidivism rate prisoners long incarceration negligible. imposed, petition raising last claims already arrived. Pet. Cert. Rudd O.T. 1993, 93-7955. 74 outset, regime undoubtedly matter policy, coast-to-coast. page whole chapter "death-is-different" apparently continuous composing. adds insistence "all see, (1978), adhere distinctive rules, normally sorts—Federal Rules Death Penalty Evidence, speak, presumably craft (at great expense swiftness predictability justice) year-by-year. heavily outnumbered opponents opened another front guerilla war unquestionably impossibility. dissent. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. venire informed, "death" "[b]y electrocution." informed. 129. Section states: board grant authorized prisoner second conviction, separate 16-1-60." earlier assault offenses 16-1-60. Specifically, 'mitigating' [it] serve 'as death,' 4-5, He impermissibly Finally, relying (1977), adequately protect express result danger. others executing eliminating safety tolerate placing straitjacket regard, emphasizes statute eventual technically unambiguously virtually 16. pardons, provides extraordinary circumstances." 24-21-950 D (1989). present, these, Nine identify alternatives Ala.Code 13A-5-46(e) Ark.Code 5-4-603(b) (1993); Cal.Penal Code 190.3 (West 1988); Conn.Gen.Stat. 53a-46a(f) (1985); Del.Code Ann.Tit. 4209(a) (1987); La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann.Art. 905.6 Supp.1994); Mo.Rev.Stat. 565.030.4 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 630:5 (Supp.1992); Wash.Rev.Code 10.95.030 (Supp.1994). Eight specify Ga.Code 17-10-31.1(a) Ind.Code 35-50-2-9 (Supp.1993); Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, 413(c)(3) Nev.Rev.Stat. 175.554(2)(c)(2) (Michie Supp.1993); Okla.Stat.Ann.Tit. 21, 701.10(A) (Supp.1994); Ore.Rev.Stat. 163.105 (1991); Tenn.Code 39-13-204(a)-(f)(2) Utah 76-3-207(4) decisional instructed, accurate, Colo.Rev.Stat. 16-11-103(1)(b) People Gacho, 122 Ill.2d 221, 119 Ill.Dec. 307, 522 N.E.2d 1146, 1166 (1988); Turner State, 573 So.2d 657, 675 (Miss.1990), 500 910, 111 1695, 89 (1991). Fla.Stat. 775.0823(1) S.D. Codified Laws 24-15-4 Wyo.Stat. 6-2-101(b), 7-13-402(a) Florida publication pattern no-parole feature 775.0823(1). Standard Jury Instructions—Criminal 603 1175, 1205 (Fla.1992). four panel judges. well, fully aware status murderers. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(B) Idaho 19-2515(d) Mont.Code 46-18-301 Neb.Rev.Stat. 29-2520 Only refuse Commonwealth Henry, 524 Pa. 160, 569 A.2d 929, 941 499 931, 1338, 113 269 Strong, 445, 458-460, 563 479, 485-486 (1989); Eaton Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 248-249, 397 385, 392-393 112 88, 116 O'Dell 234 672, 701, 364 491, 507, 488 871, 109 186, 154 SCALIA additional Texas traditionally Neither worthy pursuant recently legislation, 1993 N.C.Sess. Laws, ch. 538, 29. surveys commonsense understanding confusion Paduano Errors: Misperceptions Concerning Imposition Penalty, Colum. Human Rights 211, 222-225 Note, Meaning "Life" Virginia Jurors Effect Reliability Sentencing, Va.L.Rev. 1605, 1624 Bowers, Punishment Contemporary Values: People's Misgivings Misperceptions, Law Society 157, 169-170 inquire Compare (refraining addressing Simmons' claim), concurring) (Eighth ineligibility). 17-10-31.1 Indiana, Nevada, Okla.Stat., Tit. Oregon, 163.150 (Supp.1991), Tennessee, 39-13-204(a) Utah, Pennsylvania, 159-161, Jones 843 S.W.2d 487, 495 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), Virginia, 247-250, Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 182-184, 293 569, 589 (1982), alter effective January 1995, Ch. squarely decided Dakota, (1988), Wyoming, identified Colorado, Report 92-1, 1175 (1992), Illinois, 262-264, Doering 313 Md. 545 1281 657 New Jersey, Martini, 131 N.J. 176, 312-314, 619 1208, 1280 Mexico, Henderson, N.M. 655, 789 P.2d Petrocelli 101 Nev. 46, 692 503 (1985), Humphrey 864 343 (Okla.Crim.App.1993), Brief et al. Amici Curiae 8.

Classification Label: 0