Legal Document

451 U.S. 430 101 Supreme Court Reporter 1852 68 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 270 Robert BULLINGTON, Petitioner,v.State of MISSOURI. Number 79-6740. Argued Jan. 14, 1981. Decided May 4, Syllabus Missouri law provides only two possible sentences for a defendant convicted capital murder: (a) death, or (b) life imprisonment without eligibility probation parole 50 years. Under state statutes, separate presentence hearing, at which additional evidence in mitigation and aggravation punishment is heard, must be held before the same jury that found guilty; prosecution prove existence aggravating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt death penalty may imposed; imposes designate writing circumstance it finds doubt. The guilt-or-innocence phase petitioner's state-court trial resulted verdict guilty murder, his hearing jury's fixing After granting post-trial motion new because intervening decision Duren versus Missouri, 439 357, 99 664, 58 579 Missouri's allowing automatic exemption women from service was unconstitutional, court announced would grant motion, based on double jeopardy grounds, to strike prosecution's notice intended again seek basis had sought first trial. Appeals denied State's request writ prohibition mandamus, but ultimately granted prohibition. Held: Because under sentencing proceeding like question guilt innocence, protection afforded by Double Jeopardy Clause one acquitted available him, with respect retrial. reasoning Stroud States, 251 15, 40 50, 64 L.Ed. 103, not controlling. Pp. 437-446. This generally has concluded that, imposition particular sentence usually regarded as an "acquittal" any more severe could have been imposed, no absolute against harsher retrial after succeeded having original conviction set aside. See North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 23 656; Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 17, 93 1977, 36 714; supra; DiFrancesco, 449 117, 426, 66 328. However, those cases, unlike present case, procedures did hallmarks innocence. In three there required facts order justify sentence, sentencer's discretion determining essentially unfettered. Although supra, involved procedure, fact warranting preponderance evidence, choice far broader than choices law. 437-441. rationale Burks 437 1, 98 2141, 57 retried if he obtains reversal ground insufficient convict, relevant here. usual proceeding, impossible, absence standards, conclude less statutory maximum constitutes effect failed its case. But enacting procedure resembles issue explicitly requires determine whether "proved case." Petitioner's meant already him whatever necessary impose sentence. 441-446. 594 South Western Reporter, 2nd 908, reversed remanded. Richard Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Sindel, Clayton, Mo., petitioner. James Judge Cook, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 103 (1919), concerned who first-degree murder sentenced imprisonment, then obtained, upon confession error Solicitor General, Court, unanimous vote Fifth Amendment1 bar when convicted. 2 case also apply system where made bifurcated proceeding's second stage burden proving certain elements imposed. 3 * two, murder:2 Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.008.1 (1978).3 4 Like most legislation enacted this Court's Furman Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 (1972), statutes contain substantive standards guide sentencer. afford procedural safeguards defendant. Section 565.006 shall conduct murder.4 jury5 guilty, "additional extenuation, mitigation, punishment" heard. "Only such known prior admissible." consider shows exist 106 7 mitigating specified statute, see §§ 565.012.2 565.012.3; other authorized exist; do are sufficient warrant penalty; outweigh circumstances. 565.012.1. A 565.012.4. It convinced penalty. Approved Instructions—Criminal (MAI-Cr) 15.42 (1979). instructed compelled penalty, even decides they outweighed MAI-Cr. 15.46. unanimous. If unable agree, receives alternative described above. 565.006.2; 15.48. II 5 December petitioner Bullington indicted St. Louis County, crimes arising out abduction young woman her subsequent drowning.7 6 Circuit County pretrial change venue Jackson western part State. prosecution, letter, informed defense State murder. App. 12. letter-notice stated statute: "[t]he offense committed person . substantial history serious assaultive criminal convictions," 565.012.2(1), outrageously wantonly vile, horrible inhuman torture, depravity mind," 565.012.2(7). At trial, returned 21. On following day, proceeded hold 565.006.2. Evidence submitted received. None offered defense. argument counsel, instructions judge deliberation, 27. 8 Petitioner moved, various judgment acquittal While pending, (1979), decided. constitutional provisions claim deprived Sixth Fourteenth Amendments right drawn fair cross-section community. overruled but, relying Duren, 44. 9 Soon thereafter, served filed formal "Notice Aggravation," stating Tr. Oral Arg. 36, asserted introduce previously disclosed counsel. 45-46. moved notice, id., 47, arguing Amendment (as applicable through Amendment, Benton Maryland, 784, 794, 2056, 2062, 707 (1969)) barred declined 10 permit Before issued effect, mandamus District. temporary "stop order," 56, dissolved stop order. Id., 57. however, transfer preliminary argument, court, sitting en banc divided vote, sustained position absolute. ex rel. Westfall Mason, 908 (1980). neither Clause, nor Eighth Due Process impermissibly chill defendant's effort redress violation initial 11 We certiorari, 819, 70, 21 (1980),8 important issues raised regarding administration penalty.9 III 12 well established forbids crime charged. 129-130, 433, 328 (1980); 16, 2149, (1978); Martin Linen Supply Co., 564, 571, 97 1349, 1354, 51 642 (1977); Fong Foo 369 141, 143, 82 671, 672, 629 (1962); Green 355 184, 78 221, 199 (1957). resisted attempts extend principle sentencing. concluded, therefore, 656 (1969). U.S., 133, 137-138, S.Ct., 435, 437-438; 23-24, 1981-1982, 714 (1973); (1919). 13 differs significantly employed cases inapplicable given unbounded select appropriate wide range statute. Rather, held, presented both between alternatives making choice. Nor simply recommend what felt punishment. undertook establishing quest obtain verdicts. resembled and, indeed, all respects immediately preceding itself so precisely defined statutes.10 14 contrast, considered previous Stroud, prove—beyond otherwise each moreover, discretion.11 punishments choose explicit imposed him.12 And Chaffin, extremely broad. That defendant, Georgia robbery, prison term 20 18, n.1, 1978, n.1. statute contained exercise discretion.13 15 facts. federal consideration there, "dangerous special offender" provision Organized Crime Control Act 1970, 18 Code KF62 3575 3576, hearing. Government offender," enhanced highly pertinent differences controlling DiFrancesco. DiFrancesco include appellate review "on record court," de novo gives opportunity convince factfinder view facts.14 Moreover, faced Bullington's given—and given—only choices, imprisonment. hand, Federal proves felony dangerous offender, "an exceed twenty-five years disproportionate severity felony." 3575(b). Finally, although need evidence. Ibid. stands contrast reasonable-doubt standard used Virginia, 443 307, 2781, 61 560 (1979); re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368 (1970). use indicates said "the interests magnitude protected proof designed exclude nearly likelihood erroneous judgment. [O]ur society almost entire risk itself." Addington Texas, 441 418, 423-424, 1804, 1808, 60 323 IV 16 These become underlying considered. here relies principally Pearce.15 starting point 719-720, 2077-2078, rule retrying overturning conviction. See, e. g., Tateo, 377 463, 84 1587, 448 (1964); Ball, 163 662, 1192, 1195, 41 300 (1896). rests premise nullified slate wiped clean." 721, 2078. Therefore, again, constitutionally subjected lawful, subject limitation receive credit time served. 17 There exception, recognized Pearce. convict. (1978). reasons exception here: "[R]eversal error, distinguished evidentiary insufficiency, does constitute government cases. As such, implies nothing innocence 19 "The cannot overturned due failure complain prejudice, offer can assemble. Since we necessarily accord finality acquittal—no matter how decision—it difficult conceive greater interest when, review, decided properly guilty." 15-16, 2149-2150 (emphasis original). foreshadowed convict either lesser included second-degree appeal. charge "was forced run gantlet once refused him." 190, 225. Price 398 323, 1757, 26 Thus, "clean slate" Pearce whenever agrees proved 22 impossible "constitute[s] case."16 normal process sentencing, "there virtually rules tests standards—and thus resolve. ." M. Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order 38 (1973). [sentencing] matters free control guidance. Where power within authority left fairly large." Kadish, Legal Norm Discretion Police Sentencing Processes, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 904, 916 (1962). role noted standards. example, observed: "[A] characteristically determined large information, report, developed outside courtroom. purely judicial determination, much goes into result inquiry nonadversary nature." 136-137, 437. "[n]ormally, way place collective determination. 28, n. 1983, 15. 24 By Both Green, noted, general relied here, therefore refrain extending very different Chief Bardgett, dissent ruling majority, observed received sentence." S.W.2d, 922. agree. is, course, absolutely final. values underlie principle, Black, equally rejected deserves die: idea, deeply ingrained least Anglo-American jurisprudence, resources should allowed make repeated individual alleged offense, thereby subjecting embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing anxiety insecurity, enhancing possibility though innocent 187-188, 223-224. 27 136, "embarrassment, ordeal" "anxiety insecurity" surely equivalent "unacceptably high [prosecution], superior resources, wear down defendant," 130, leading erroneously were further ultimate State, bear "almost error." 424, 1808. Given these considerations, our today depend intention rely statement support contention Having "one assemble," 2150, entitled another. V 28 many protections similar Specht Patterson, 386 605, 87 1209, 326 (1967) (due confront witnesses, favorable "a finding ingredient charged," 608, 1211). retrial.17 situation. 29 reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 30 ordered. 31 POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 32 concerns force reversed. holds precludes asking death. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions irreconcilable precedents well-established decisions applies redeterminations settled whose followed (1969), "corollary retry power, reconviction, legally authorized, conviction." 720, "regarded implicit degree murder" charge. 225, 34 some tension opinions, their holdings inconsistent. landmarks Clause. cited reexamine Indeed, reaffirmed recent 135-136, 436, 24, 1981, Earlier Term, qualification difference reached explained grounds operate implied 14.1 Compare Ante, 438 ("The 'acquittal' added)). Green's "implicit acquittal" despite unqualified 35 justifies applying implicit-acquittal establishes trial.2 view, give innocence," 439, require decide 444. reasons, reflects According characterized recites classic 223-224, reconsideration unquestioned. 445-446. states, documentation record, expense, ordeal, resentencing great accompany redetermination 445. states attempt might lead concludes bars seeking 37 determinations heretofore thought fundamental two. supra. adhere precedents, think Underlying objective truth: fact, commit acts constituting From accused suspected made, justice enable trier discover truth according triers err, pronounced guilty. limited assessing validity decision. function mete just deserts sees them. Absent mandatory measure deemed correct duly conferred legislature.3 39 light nature decisions, not—as frame made. considering final imposing pertinence clear, answer consistently past escaped "[t]here distinctions acquittal, fail recognize them ignore significance acquittal." 435. "enhanc[es] 188, 224. 25, 1982, higher accepted [in ] legitimate concomitant process." acceptable whereas not, "correct" jury's. Similarly, being serving sum, find wholly unpersuasive justification purport conclusion facing legal sense time. For reason, read prescribe unique protect capricious discriminatory impositions (1972); Gregg 428 153, 96 2909, 49 859 (1976) (joint opinion). strictures lawful requisite procedures. single statutorily constitutionally, nonetheless face twice. kind defendants reconviction. 18-19, 1978-1979; 17-18, 51-52. disregards principles cases.4 42 course explaining why stated: "Corresponding societal punishing clear obtained trial." 466, 1589, (1964). Constitution barring exacting unless doing conflicts avoiding retrial, dissent. " offence twice put limb. definition forth 565.001 "Any unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, deliberately, premeditation kills causes killing another human murder." reads: "Persons shall, recommends complying sections 565.012, punished division corrections during natural eligible until minimum fifty times, part: "1. trials indictment information heard jury, counsel proper retire punishment, ascertain, degree, manslaughter, offense. "2. returns provided subsection section, resume determination laws hear including convictions pleas nolo contendere pleas. Only admissible. prosecuting attorney open jury. Upon arguments, section 565.012 followed. fix limits prescribed fixed cannot, time, agree law; except instance tried "3. appeal ordered punishment." amended 1979 Mo. Laws H.B. 251, amendment affect describe 1980 provide Those added were: "(11) while engaged perpetration perpetrate rape forcible sodomy sodomy; "(12) purpose preventing killed testifying proceeding." 565.012.2(11) (12) (Supp.1980). charged kidnaping, armed action, burglary, flourishing deadly weapon. charges. take rejecting "final" meaning jurisdictional 1257. Harris Washington, 404 55, 183, 212 (1971). Abney 431 651, 2034, 52 651 (1977). Subsequent (1976), courts originally Texas construing Sanne 609 762, 766-767 Brasfield 600 288, 298 violate state-law requirement, Ga. 27-2537(c)(3), 'excessive defendant.' Ward 239 205, 208-209, 236 Eastern 365, opening statements, testimony taken, introduced, instructed, arguments deliberates verdict. n.4, All steps taken speaks specifically terms "trial." 565.006.2 returned, hearing." (Emphasis added.) provided: "Every suffer death," qualify adding thereto 'without punishment;' return qualified aforesaid, life." Mar. 1909, 275, 330, Statutes-at-Large 1143, 1152, codified currently 1111(b). Stroud's language giving guidance Record O. T. 1919, 276, Page 472. told "pretend tell you considerations come [of sentence]." 1917, 694, 177. assault intent rape, punishable N. C. Gen. 14-22 repealed Sess. Laws, ch. 682, 7, replaced. discussing attributes "Normally, ordinarily guilt." n.15, n.15. starkly illustrates significant now authorizes "review findings clearly erroneous, court's abused." 3576. concern application add argument. primarily 23-24. mitigate render 18. addition practices, rulings [and] policy. 132, practices little assistance since instituted unique. below, policy favor rather DiFrancesco's discussion chiefly 134-136, 436-437. "Sentencing release country largely unfettered officials involved. Legislatures traditionally penalties judges specific sentences, purposes often deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, community condemnation maintain law, legislatures silent primary among resolved. merely 'in ends best public.' [18 4205(b).] "In policymaking delegated multitude independent exercised context determinations. Normally, type investigation informational intelligent 'individualized' Yet, factors considered, circumstances, weighted solely decisionmakers." Hoffman Stover, Reform Determination Prison Terms: Equity, Determinacy, Parole Release Function, Hofstra L.Rev. 89, (1978) (footnotes omitted). issue, occasion address claims Sixth, Eighth, Amendments. 199, applicability problem. provision's guarantee acquitted." 2078, distinguish (1980), (1973), pursuant No questions procedures, different. analytically immaterial infra, 450. Of "erroneous," inheres Also, called "erroneous" grossly committed. event, "cruel unusual" Amendment. Weems 217 349, 544, 54 793 (1910). trouble concurring agreed Stroud. reveals "prove case" deserved (1978), secure "case" "aggravating" warranted expressly gravity 434-435. mean adduced To sure, yet acquittals juries reason assume Accordingly, unfair 'second bite apple.' 2150.

Classification Label: 0