Legal Document

474 U.S. 376 106 S.Ct. 689 88 L.Ed.2d 704 Donald A. CABANA, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, et al., Petitionersv.Crawford BULLOCK, Jr. No. 84-1236. Argued Nov. 5, 1985. Decided Jan. 22, 1986. Syllabus After respondent and his friend Tucker accepted Dickson's offer of a ride home, fight developed between Dickson, Dickson stopped the car. Respondent held head as struck in face with whiskey bottle. then pummeled fists until fell to ground lay helpless, at which point killed him by smashing skull concrete block. disposed body, kept car for himself. was arrested next day charged capital murder under statute. The jury found guilty and, following separate sentencing hearing, sentenced death. Supreme Court affirmed, finding that verdict death sentence were sustainable law making an accomplice equally responsible principal offender. exhausting state postconviction remedies, filed petition writ habeas corpus Federal District Court, denied writ. Appeals reversed on respondent's invalid intervening decision Enmund v. Florida, 458 782, 102 3368, 73 1140 (1982), Eighth Amendment forbids imposition penalty "one who aids abets felony course is committed others but does not himself kill, attempt or intend killing take place lethal force will be employed." Id., 797, S.Ct., 3376. court based its conclusion solely upon reading instructions trial, reasoning those may well have despite concluding he had neither nor intended kill without ever coming any questions. Accordingly, granted vacated permitted State, option, impose life conduct new hearing which, proper findings, could reimposed. Held: 1. correct jury's guilt necessarily reflected killed, attempted kill. Pp. 383-384. 2. But erred focusing exclusively ordering inquiring whether necessary intent been made trial appellate court. rule need enforced particular form procedure States. At what criminal process chooses make determination little concern from standpoint Constitution. when federal reviews claim, inquiry cannot limited examination instructions. Rather, must examine entire proceedings order determine whether, some point, requisite factual defendant's culpability has made. If it has, presumed virtue 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), unless petitioner can bear burden overcoming presumption, hold interpreted offended sentence. 384-388. 3. Court's insufficient satisfy Enmund, holds more than require death-sentenced defendant legally matter law; requires actually used. 389-390. 4. faced raising claim courts failed regarding criteria steps State's own judicial system findings first instance. Therefore, Mississippi, court, should provide reliable 390-391. 5. Here, directed issue vacating leave choice either imposing imprisonment reimposing after obtaining question would P. 392. 743 F.2d 244 (CA5 1984), modified remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion BURGER, C.J., POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. BRENNAN, dissenting 393. BLACKMUN, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, 394. STEVENS, 407. Marvin L. White, Jr., Jackson, Miss., petitioners. Joseph T. McLaughlin, New York City, respondent. Justice WHITE Court. 1 In we ruled . This case us whose hands possesses degree properly lies. 2 * Early morning September 1978, Crawford Bullock Ricky Mark home bar Mississippi. During ride, began argue about money supposedly owed Tucker. argument became fight: car, exchanged blows. grab eluded grasp fled gave chase succeeded tackling while Bullock, cast leg, followed slowly. When caught up struggling men, ground. As repeated blows together police spotted driving Under questioning station, confessed participation events just described. 3 statute provided "[t]he human being authority means manner shall [w]hen done design effect death, person engaged commission crime robbery commit such." Miss. Code Ann. 97-3-19(2)(e) (Supp.1985). law, participant convicted notwithstanding lack place, "[i]t familiar two persons act concert, common design, committing violence others, homicide one them incident execution both are criminally liable homicide." Price 362 So.2d 204, 205 (Miss.1978). accordance this doctrine liability, instructed phase Bullock's follows: 4 "The instructs Jury if you believe evidence case, beyond reasonable doubt 21, First Judicial Hinds County, present, consented to, encouraged thereby aided another individual, he, said Jr.; other, there did wilfully, unlawfully feloniously carry away personal property presence person, against will, to-wit [sic]; billfold 1978 Thunderbird automobile possession, event, Defendant, whole offense; further finds doubt, date aforesaid, aforesaid robbery, any, alone, acting consert [sic] another, present time consenting said, overt immediately connected leading commission, self defense, means, manner, the[n], murder." App. 87-89. 5 murder. Following statutory aggravating circumstances they outweighed mitigating circumstances. 6 On appeal argued, inter alia, allow submission charge so disproportionate level involvement violate Amendment. rejected contentions. 391 601 (1980), cert. denied, 452 931, 101 3068, 69 432 (1981). view "overwhelming" "that [Bullock] aiding assisting assault upon, slaying of, taking T-bird automobile, lawful possession use Dickson." So.2d, 606. With respect punishment culpability, noted settled abetting crime, offender." Because "an active Dickson," concluded guilt. 614. 7 United States Southern writ, Fifth Circuit our handed down during pendency proceedings. Lucas, 1984). given trial. reasoned offered quoted pertinent part above, basis abetted someone else killed: part, find killed. addition, nowhere required killing. Thus, quite possible court's view, prohibited absent such trier fact; accordingly, sentence, permitting "at or, within period time, hearing" F.2d, 248. 8 Circuit's holding satisfied only guilt-innocence (see also Reddix Thigpen, 728 705 1984)) conflicts interpretation adopted Eleventh Circuit, see Ross Kemp, 756 1483 (1985),1 certiorari, 471 1052, 105 2110, 85 476 (1985). II 9 reflects were, say least, confusing, do lend themselves easily interpretation. A fair-minded juror, however, understood mean regard having led killing.2 buttressed, Judge Garwood pointed out below, fact "the essentially tried theory, full necessary, conviction killing." kill; reached whatever III 10 employed end into bars sentence; rather, step. requiring before might reimposed—the apparently proceeded premise (presumably proof doubt) possessed culpability. Examination nature ruling reveals erroneous. 11 serious right innocence, Duncan Louisiana, 145, 1444, 20 491 (1968), stand each element standard proof, Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 99 2450, 61 39 (1979). Findings judge cure deficiencies innocence resulting failure instruct crime. See Connecticut Johnson, 460 73, 95, n. 3, 103 969, 982, 74 823 (1983) (POWELL, dissenting); cf. Beck Alabama, 447 625, 645, 100 2382, 2393, 65 392 (1980); Presnell Georgia, 439 14, 235, 58 207 (1978); id., 239 dissenting). defendant—it establishes no elements jury. itself recognized, "does affect state's definition substantive offense, even offense." 709; U.S., 810, 19, 3383, 19 (O'CONNOR, principles proportionality embodied class nonetheless defined law: is, murderers kill.3 12 punishment—even penalty—is appropriate Indeed, Spaziano 468 447, 104 3154, 82 340 (1984), specifically Sixth other constitutional provision provides consider appropriateness Moreover, like questions bearing rights violated, long viewed fully competent make. See, e.g., Solem Helm, 463 277, 3001, 77 637 (1983); Weems States, 217 349, 30 544, 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). 13 permissible different significant general exercise discretion type undertaken Helm. latter determinations typically involve case-by-case, totality-of-the-circumstances decisionmaking. contrast, imposes categorical rule: used Nonetheless, remains limitation sentencing, limits 14 imposed ineligible punishment. violated her regardless makes culpability; same token, lacks violation adequately remedied power facts vacate precise considerable freedom structure sees fit, "[a]s several times clear, unwilling way set scheme." Spaziano, supra, 464, 3164; Pulley Harris, 465 37, 871, 79 29 (1984); Zant Stephens, 462 862, 2733, 235 Gregg 428 153, 195, 96 2909, 2935, 49 859 (1976) (opinion STEWART, JJ.). 15 used, state-court process, made.4 Sumner Mata, 449 539, 764, 66 722 (1981), heavy obliged sentence.5 IV 16 thus argues sufficient direct review It relies statements opinion. First, responding evidence, overwhelming appellant Second, determining sentences cases, stated 17 We very doubtful, these assessments record constitute Dickson. obviously addressing specific requirements forth yet decided. remarks better read stating deserving light takes aid leads statement proportionality, words, represent most that, put it, "by legal killed." Pet. Cert. A30-A31 (emphasis added). Such V 18 There action criteria. Two possibilities come mind. grant deny depending outcome inquiry. Alternatively, would, course, presumptively result 2254(d) subsequent Either alternative adequate remedy hypothesized violation, approach prevent force. believe, second sounder one. considerations underlie conclusion. extent recognizes predicate, implies predicate. "is entitled [of issue] valid procedures." Jackson Denno, 378 368, 393, 84 1774, 1789, 908 (1964). "a weighty interest applied administration courts." Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 548, 81 735, 743, 760 (1961). Considerations federalism comity counsel ability their role primary protectors defendants, Younger 401 91 746, 27 669 (1971); indicate allowing opportunity instance called Enmund. To paraphrase 393-394, 1789-1790, therefore, constitutionally entitled—a subject used.6 VI proceeding indicated currently tribunal—be judge, jury.7 devoted identification weighing factors thus, far concerned, unnecessary. 21 leaving determined judgment extent, remanded consistent 22 ordered. 23 Chief concurring. 24 Although I remanding courts, join true Enmund's explicitly mind reviewed because completed Nevertheless, clear concerns case. 25 rejecting support "was robbery-homicide," 601, 606 (1980) added), That similar again 26 Surely reflect actively participated actual killing, requires. circumstances, expend finite resources calling tell already i.e., satisfies dictated dissenting. BLACKMUN's STEVENS' dissents, adhere my all cruel unusual Fourteenth Amendments, 227, 2950, (BRENNAN, remand sentence—other death—may appropriate. whom MARSHALL join, Last Term, Caldwell 472 320, 2633, 86 231 (1985), (a cited controlling ante ), recognized institutional death: 31 "Whatever intangibles determination, few gleaned record. inability confront individuality particularly devastating consideration termed '[those] compassionate stemming diverse frailties humankind.' factors, clearly envisioned occur among sentencers hear arguments witnesses." 330-331, 2640 (citations omitted; interpolation original). 32 abstract disquisition generally. concerns, particular, cases. Today, ignores recently make, paper record, (1982)—that deserves die. reaches paying lipservice significance relegating position afterthought. dictates sentencer condemns misreading threatens retreat safeguards acknowledged decade since (1976). 33 testified proceeding. He Tr. 956, 983, 996, 1190. entirely testimony. recognizes, convict Ante, 34 findings. affirmed Mississippi's abetting, threshold below minimum. account written confession, 605, intention robbing 387-390. confession concludes none 35 central message intensely individual appraisal "personal responsibility moral guilt" defendant. 801, 3378. 36 focus insist 'individualized requirement sentence,' Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 605 [98 2954, 2965, 57 973] (1978) (footnote omitted), 'relevant facets character offender.' Woodson North Carolina, 280, 304 [96 2978, 2991, 944] (1976)." 798, 3378 37 Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 110-112, 869, 874-875, 71 (1982); 603-604, 98 2964, 973 (plurality opinion); 199 (joint opinion). 38 Put simply, predicate penalty. Cf. ante, 390. Like discussed (1983), "circumscribe eligible penalty." 878, 2743. Just as, circumstance, " '[a] pass area authorized' Georgia 872, 2740, quoting 250 Ga. 97, 100, 297 S.E.2d 1, too, authorized agrees wrong execute 378, 385, 386. so, discharge truly awesome decreeing fellow human," McGautha California, 402 183, 208, 1454, 1467, 711 (1971), considering fundamental By condemning die, announced fit live. expression community's ultimate outrage, unaccompanied involved kind deprivation dignity forbids. Cf., Trop Dulles, 356 86, 100-102, 78 590, 597-598, 630 (1958) 366, 40 how remains. absence supplied "any sentence." guarantee reliability Constitution demands. today goes simple error occurred. tells effect, die guilt, turning preliminary stage capital-sentencing poses threat diffusing sentencer's sense condemned Caldwell. roles pragmatic roles. short, rests improper equation wholly dissimilar functions found. established imperative fails confuses purports carried finding. 41 distinction difference decisions Cole Arkansas, 333 196, 68 514, 92 644 (1948), (1978). Cole, defendants' charged. Due Process Clause defendants "have validity convictions appraised issues court." 202, 517. Presnell, "fundamental procedural fairness" "apply less guilt-determining trial." 16, 236. circumstance Notably, Courts' evidentiary correct; irrelevant gives carte blanche engage factfinding concerning thought relevant. 'the theory killing.' 42 384, 244, 248 1984) (concurring also, 1155. critical never court.1 43 Far "[c]onsiderations comity," 391, examining transcripts themselves. compelling reason address And, reliability, credibility. 44 adopt schemes depend "it apparent always inadequate," 388, turns heightened informed over past decade.2 328-329, 2639; California Ramos, 992, 998-999, 3446, 3451, 1171 637-638, 2389-2390, 604, Gardner 430 358-359, 97 1197, 1204-1205, 51 393 (1977) announcing judgment); 305, 944 decides factfinder witnesses. 45 special competence formed Caldwell's discussion "institutional do." 330, 2640. variety contexts, relied Appeals' explanation Boyd Boyd, 252 N.Y. 422, 429, 169 N.E. 632, 634 (1930): 46 "Face living witnesses original advantage judges excluded. doubtful cases observation often proves accurate method ascertaining truth. How wrong? saw sophistication sagacity confides duty appraisal. His opportunity, decide." 47 Wainwright Witt, 469 412, 434, 844, 857, 83 841 (1985) (quoting ); Marshall Lomberger, 459 843, 851, 646 (same). 48 Our precedents contrary. Florida "plac[ed] case." 465, 3165 relevant respects, jury, seen witnesses, positioned "determinations demeanor credibility peculiarly judge's province." 428, 854.3 B Enmund," reliance three premises: first, States," 286 omitted); second, 'does offense,' 705, 709 (CA5), 990, 397, 331 third, "substantive sentencing" amenable traditional review, None propositions justifies today. 50 refused 'to scheme,' 387, 3165, ways. shown, scheme permits sacrifices needlessly discernible end, restrict define offenses beside point. "capital" "automatically dictate penalty," 602, 2963 opinion), empower Coker 433 584, 2861, 53 982 (1977), example, Georgia's rape offense dispose issue. Both O'CONNOR's dissent Reddix—the authorities relies—recognize distinction, seems elude defining dissenting) (Enmund contest murder; "sole challenge imposed"); Reddix, (the instruction intent; "Enmund, 'bar penalty' instruction, Skillern Estelle, 720 839, 847 1983) 873, 224, 153 (1984)). free wishes; murderer 52 justify reference (1983). mistakenly amalgamates de novo factfinding. Certainly, make." demands reviewing decide weighed seriousness severity binds well. joint opinions (1976), Proffitt 242, 2960, 913 Jurek Texas, 262, 929 rested approval combination channeled review. Gregg, "important additional safeguard" "whether supports circumstance," comparative 198, 2937. Proffitt, "meaningful review" justifying 251, 2966. Jurek, 269, 276, 2955, 2958. permit collapse abandon protections afforded every previously approval. "insist[ed] 3377 merely imposed. relieved availability places precedes C demonstrates graphically why trial-court determination. sole player vote send accused die." Wiley 756, 762 (Miss.1984); Williams 445 811 (Miss.1984), 1117, 803, 795 then, heed limits. suggests postpone effectively deprive because, "conducted presumption correctness." Wiley, 762; Caldwell, 331, 2641; Miss.Code 99-19-105 examines rather things. Saying acted blameworthiness. 55 Hicks 343, 2227, 175 former simply due process. Hicks, imposed, Oklahoma required, Criminal range. vests substantial legitimate expectation deprived liberty discretion." 346, 2229. appeals reform denying "simply frail conjecture harsh [affirmed court]. arbitrary disregard petitioner's denial law." Ibid. 56 buries footnote acknowledgment turn accurately Anderson Bessemer 470 564, 575 [105 1504, 1512, 518] (1985); 429 855, 841] (1985)." notice "given case": took stand, phases transcript. think resulted drunken brawl tragically got hand, concede testify lied. fail, confidently conclude, indication anyone testify, unworthy belief nothing respect.4 construct inadequate strikes me abdication ensure punishment, meets Constitution's requirements.5 deciding hardly did. guarantee, Inasmuch majority refuses essential step, dissent. 59 joins, 60 justification executing depends culpability—"what [his] intentions, expectations, actions were. American considered intention—and therefore culpability,' Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 698 [95 1881, 1888, 508] (1975), penalties unconstitutionally excessive intentional wrongdoing." 800, 3378, (1982). precludes "crime 'a consciousness materially "depraved" murder.' 800-801, ultimately outrage—its lost entitlement live,"* response single decisionmaker, wisely decided decisionmaker best able "express conscience community death." Witherspoon Illinois, 519, 1770, 1775, 776 (1968). points out, 383-384, follows, outrage community, conducted reasoning, affirm Appeals. Ross, 1488. finding, holds, independent "level application 1489. agree satisfied, appear, An 380, murder, "did malice, defense." 90-91. change preceding concluded, together, "in killed" referred acts rendered accountable previous instruction. instructions, earlier, meaning Even irreconcilable conclude last Term Francis Franklin, 307, 322, 1965, 1975, 344 "[n]othing contradictory carries weight other. Language contradicts explain infirm suffice absolve infirmity. knowing jurors reaching verdict." speculate likely chosen earlier though somewhat harder follow, appears comprehensive tied presented unable understand defendant." Post, 403. text, recognize permissibly execute. making, prohibits supply jury; hence, inadequacy corrected inapposite. (1978), proposition omitted misguided. where creates protect entitlement. Unlike state-law (or, indeed, all) Of later entitle used; but, reasons explained federal-law entitlement, unlike specify charges kidnaping bodily injury, factor supporting injury. wrongly instructed. aside indicating Insofar setting unremarkable supra. reversing instructed, appeared assume equivalent innocence. assumption, longer tenable (1984). Sumner, applies courts. 545-547, 768-769. instances, apply procedures "adequate," 2254(d)(2). For 575, 518 possibility falling 2254(d)(2) exception exist, excuse obligation made, inadequate. adversely ambiguities resolved favor. 1483, 1488-1490 (CA11 1985). now us, for, see, purported factfinding, decline hypothetical adequacy theoretically received conceded defended claiming self-defense, if, reason, justified treating courts' explicit harmless doubt; 1499-1500 (Clark, part). post-Enmund statute, task delegated 99-19-101(7) Whether where, occurred prior passage resolve. distinguish assumption juries sentences, 387-388, 4, misplaced. "as [they] 517 judges, juries, determinations. infra, 401, There, correctness accorded extends defeated showing afford fair hearing." "adequate" involves distinct inquiries. hearing. comports raises questions: claims inherently Mata answer question, assumes factfinder. Appeal suggestiveness photographic lineup "completely adequate" purpose. 543, 767. says treated based, nature, explaining incompetent facts. doubt. Surely, foreclose relief 384. 2254(d)(2)'s terms, "factfinding procedure" vested "adequate." Similarly, heard testified. Every implicitly seven vest presentation confronted Ala.Code 13A-5-46 Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703 (Supp.1985); Fla.Stat. 921.141 Idaho 19-2515 Ind.Code 35-50-2-9 Mont.Code 46-18-301 Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 29-2520 29-2521 No placed power, opposed front authority, identified then-existing statutes potentially countenanced kill: Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wyoming. 789, 3372, 5; 792, nn. 13, 3373-3374, 13. Since addressed McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 199, 665 P.2d 70, People Garcia, Cal.3d 556-557, Cal.Rptr. 265, 274-276, 684 826, 835-837 1229, 366 Allen 253 390, 395, 321 710, 715, 1059, 834 Stokes, 308 N.C. 634, 651-652, 184, 195 Hatch 662 1377, 1382-1383 (Okla.Crim.App.1983); Peterson, 287 S.C. 248, 335 802 Five others—Connecticut, Dakota—have claim. many least know convince diminished lives spared. served regular satisfactory. better, me, establish bright-line especially identify legitimately prefer function refusal "determine us," perverse. broad resolution parties, blind reach not, suggests, "hypothetical." believability testimony factor, instance, testify. anything "hypothetical," it. 467, 3167, (1984) (STEVENS,

Classification Label: 0