Legal Document

486 U.S. 367 108 S.Ct. 1860 100 L.Ed.2d 384 Ralph MILLS, Petitioner,v.MARYLAND. No. 87-5367. Argued March 30, 1988. Decided June 6, Syllabus Petitioner, a Maryland prison inmate, was tried by state-court jury and convicted of the first-degree murder his cellmate. In trial's sentencing phase, same found that State had established statutory aggravating factor petitioner committed while he confined in correctional institution, marked "no" beside each mitigating circumstance referenced on verdict form, thereby requiring imposition death penalty under Maryland's capital scheme. Petitioner challenged sentence ground capital-punishment statute, as applied to him, unconstitutionally mandatory. He asserted explained court's instructions implemented required if unanimously an circumstance, but could not agree existence any particular circumstance; thus, even some or all jurors were believe circumstances present, unless they factor, necessarily would be death. The Court Appeals concluded constitutionally sound, interpreting statute's unanimity requirement applying determinations critical issues, including acceptance rejection circumstances. court observed form regarded order mark with respect trial judge's stressed need for issues presented. that, when accept reject answer should left blank proceed balancing where juror weigh she balance them against found. Held: 1. case, sentencer may precluded from considering, relevant aspect defendant's character record offense defendant proffers basis less than Under finds have been proved exist, it then proceeds decide whether those outweigh But is correct, does single give evidence effect whatsoever, must impose sentence. If interpretation case remanded resentencing. Pp. 373-375. 2. There substantial probability reasonable jurors, upon receiving this attempting complete instructed, well thought considering 12 agreed circumstance. Because understood failed existed, might prevented factors which call severe penalty, petitioner's cannot stand. 375-384. (a) With findings guilt, jury's set aside can supported one another, reviewing uncertain two grounds relied reaching verdict. Review sentences demands greater certainty conclusions rested proper grounds. 375-377. (b) While Appeals' construction plausible, concluded, degree certainty, did adopt instead. Nothing arguably construable suggesting leave next step its deliberations. A following out only adhered view such so considered. 377-380. (c) no extrinsic what actually thought, portions relating indicate there at least risk misinformed. Moreover, since time decided below, has promulgated new expressly covering situation lack nonexistence providing consideration determining This shows concern part juries misunderstand previous individual jurors. 380-384. 310 Md. 33, 527 A.2d 3 (1987), vacated remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, STEVENS, JJ., joined. post, p. ___, filed concurring opinions. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting opinion, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, joined, ___. George E. Burns, Jr., Baltimore, Md., petitioner. Charles O. Monk, II, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN Court. 1 seeks review decision highest construes State's scheme manner preserves constitutionality evident charged function case. we reason also arrived "saving" construction, vacate remand 2 * Mills cellmate Correctional Institution Hagerstown. repeatedly stabbed victim "shank" homemade knife. phase trial, propounded, namely, "committed institution." App. 99. Defense counsel sought persuade presence certain circumstances, particular, relative youth, mental infirmity, future dangerousness, failure make meaningful attempt rehabilitate incarcerated. Id., 89-93.1 On provided pursuant then-existing, rescinded, Rule Procedure 772A, returned death.2 conviction various grounds, argument Md.Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 413 mandatory.3 construed require According view, 4 sound. (1987). dispute statute read suggested, improperly giving due evidence. court, however, interpreted differently held observing absence ultimate question imposed, life imprisonment. See 413(k)(2).4 Thus, "[a]s long believes exists outweighed continues adhere her position, will scheme." 54, A.2d, 13. 5 recognized, fully provide transpire lacking stages deliberation. Concluding state legislature intend deadlock whenever authority fill gaps process, see 413(l), instructed stage, leaving blank. directed jury. 66-68, 19-20. 6 judge sharply disagreed majority's intended kind issue requires unanimity. law generally verdicts, alternative "predicate historic fact" support 95, 33. dissent probable, reasonably possible, represented find rather unanimous determination exist. 92-95, 32-33. 7 importance scheme, granted certiorari. 484 975, 484, 98 483 II 8 Petitioner's straightforward, illustrated hypothetical contends possible scheme:5 9 "If eleven are six result Consequently, nothing judgment though think wholly inappropriate." Brief 11. 10 below postulated just intuitively disturbing: All significant enough never permitted engage weighing process deliberation appropriateness penalty. 79-81, 25-26. 11 Although discretion guided appropriately objective standards, Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 420, 428, 1759, 1764-1765, 64 398 (1980) (plurality opinion), certainly height arbitrariness allow dissent.6 It beyond " 'the [may] death.' Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 110, 102 869, 874, 71 (1982), quoting Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 604, 2954, 2964-2965, 57 973 (1978) opinion) (emphasis original). Skipper South Carolina, 476 1, 4, 106 1669, 1670-1671, 90 (1986). corollary "the refuse consider 'any evidence' equally "well established." Ibid. added), Eddings, U.S., 114, S.Ct., 877.7 accordingly. 413(h). 67, 19. our decisions, barrier sentencer's interposed supra; Hitchcock Dugger, 481 393, 107 1821, 95 347 (1987); evidentiary ruling, supra. true juror's holdout vote finding Whatever cause, conclusion same: "Because [sentencer's] risks erroneous sentence, plain violation Lockett, duty resentencing." 117, n., 878, n. (O'CONNOR, concurring). III A. 13 question, then, drawn given employed Francis Franklin, 471 307, 315-316, 105 1965, 1972, 85 344 (1985) ("The . Supreme declares meaning charge be, meaning"), citing Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 516-517, 99 2450, 2455-2456, 61 39 (1979). Accord, California Brown, 479 538, 837, 93 934 have, every indicated facts preponderance evidence, thus properly upheld judgment.8 other hand, "factors penalty," 605, 2965, 14 guilt criminal charges, consistently followed rule See, e.g., Yates United States, 354 298, 312, 77 1064, 1073, 1356 (1957); Stromberg California, 283 359, 367-368, 51 532, 535, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931). sentences, demanded 2965 ("[T]he imposed spite unacceptable incompatible commands Eighth Fourteenth Amendments"); Andres 333 740, 752, 68 880, 886, 92 1055 (1948) ("That men derive 567 probable. cases doubts presented here resolved favor accused");9 accord, Zant Stephens, 462 862, 884-885, 103 2733, 2746-2747, 235 (1983). Unless possibility "improper" ground, resentencing.10 B 15 conceding conclude, form. At distributed copies (This reproduced entirety, answers given, Appendix opinion.) After reading aloud instruction form's Section I stressing requirement, explained: "[Y]ou number proven doubt. you conclude proven, yes. satisfied, course no." 70 added). We difficult into statement answer, like "yes" unanimous. Indeed, establishes rough equivalence between write "yes," writing "no": learns leads obtains 16 moved addresses which, any, language beginning section identical I, except standard proof doubt, Appendix, ----, presume contrary, similar throughout consistently. "no." clear box without unanimity, said dispelled probable inference opposite therefore appropriate reflect inability affirmative.11 stage deliberations.12 17 place opportunity anything more eight, ---, permits recognize anything, addition enumerated factors, offered "other" list space provided, "[i]f entry lines eight." 73. No indicating do willing something about petitioner, background, crime, factor. 18 Ordinarily, reaches or, adopted Had sentenced reached III,13 suggests either, free point mitigation balanced II. Any marked, rejected, considered juror. "precluded [an] [or a] circumstanc[e] proffer[ed] death," 1671, considered.14 C 19 is, course, thought. before us instructions. Our parts astounded said, "appears blue after nearly ten years extensive litigation involving statute." 94, Looking available, noted 25 forms completed ever 9, 9. 20 One additional bit natural become available 25, 1987. emergency basis, Findings Sentencing Determination Proc. 4-343(e) (amended July 1987, effective Aug. 17, 1987). incorporates both accepting rejecting More significantly, concerning completely rewritten changed. Now, asked choose among three options: 21 "(Mark one) 22 _____ above exists. 23 24 period deliberation, us, fewer 12, exists." Md.Ann.Code, Md.Rules, Vol. (1988), pp. 494-497. As before, provides articulate "additional circumstances." unlike used explicitly directs "additional" "[o]ne ., 12" 497. 26 during instructs follows: 27 "(If determines IV. Proceed V enter 'Death.' IV.)" 28 IV now reflects mitigation: 29 "Each shall exist exist." 30 hesitant infer too much prior well-meant efforts remove ambiguity avoid noticing these changes effected note, worth, option reporting nonunanimous votes, done so.15 31 member Mills, similarly Maryland. say confidence Mills' adopted. common sense little possess suggest blanks report themselves deadlocked over Tr. Oral Arg. 42, so. 32 exercise power execute citizens public officials called make. Evolving standards societal decency correspondingly high reliability conducted task great 33 cases, block consideration, consequently dare risk. 34 insofar sustained penalty.16 further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 35 ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 36 FINDINGS AND SENTENCE DETERMINATION FORM EMPLOYED AT PETITIONER'S TRIAL 37 "Section 38 "Based 'yes' BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT 'no' DOUBT: "1. enforcement officer who murdered performance duties. 40 ___ _X_ Yes 41 "2. institution. 42 43 "3. furtherance escape evade lawful custody, arrest detention guard institution officer. 44 45 "4. hostage taken attempted kidnapping abduction kidnap abduct. 46 47 "5. child abducted Article 48 49 "6. agreement contract remuneration promise commit murder. 50 "7. engaged another person remuneration. 52 53 "8. murder, imprisonment life. 54 55 "9. first arising incident. 56 "10. committing robbery, arson rape sexual degree. 58 59 'yes', 'no', Sections III.) 60 PREPONDERANCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE: previously (i) guilty crime violence; (ii) entered plea nolo contendere (iii) probation stay violence. paragraph, 'crime violence' means abduction, arson, escape, kidnapping, manslaughter, involuntary mayhem, second degree, offenses, use handgun commission felony 62 63 participant conduct consented act caused victim's 65 acted duress, domination provocation person, constitute defense prosecution. 66 67 capacity appreciate criminality conform requirements substantially impaired incapacity, disorder emotional disturbance. 69 youthful age crime. sole proximate cause 72 73 unlikely activity continuing threat society. 74 Other forth below: 76 None. III. 78 79 I. 80 81 "DETERMINATION 82 "Enter either 'Life Imprisonment' 'Death' according instructions: 83 Imprisonment.' 84 86 87 "We determine Death." 99-103. 88 concurring. 89 join Court's analysis why, current jurisprudence, vacated. separately because judgment, prejudice proceedings, preclude reimposition Adhering my cruel unusual punishment prohibited Amendments, Gregg 428 153, 227, 96 2909, 2950, 859 (1976), direct resentencing circumscribed reimpose 91 how their That addresses, am persuaded correct solution. Hence, Chief whom KENNEDY join, dissenting. decides infirm charges Last Term, reaffirmed inquiry impermissible jury, however improbable, literally possible; instead "what meaning." 541, 839. pass test, affirm conviction. 94 already serving 30-year 1982, times chest back threatened kill several weeks earlier numerous met warden, August 1984, made good threat. Evidence strongly suggested brutal assault unprovoked initiated asleep. hearing proceeded trial. useful confronted existed; "[t]he 99-101. decision, began: 97 EVIDENCE." ante, These seven factors. choice "______ yes [or] ______ no"; checked eighth final "[o]ther below," wrote "none." 101-103. negative responses, examined light directions admit interpretation: existed weighed determined present. [would] meaning," absolutely abundantly acting instructions.1 instructions, serve understandable guide deliberations, accompanied judge. ignores open doubt reinforce understanding reach proceeding next. distributing forms, charges: 101 "Let me remind your raised unanimous; twelve agree. "Now yes, two, begins top page two. based Again stress unanimous, 104 "Again let burdens defined regard items 109 no, falls." 110 69, 70-71, 73, 74, 111 Over again, exhorted one. repeated emphasis, combined face itself, simply alert To otherwise, does, applies deliberations judges freedom suitable mathematics physical sciences affairs human beings.2 112 majority purports employ intended. 'what meaning.' 839, 316, (1985); Brown advanced defendant, understand rely "mere sympathy" "a directive ignore sort sympathy totally divorced adduced phase." 542, 840. Similarly, Jurek Texas, 262, 929 Texas "have common-sense core capable them." 279, 2959-2960 (WHITE, judgment) (agreeing joint Stewart, Powell, JJ.). demonstrates determinative element review. 113 For reason, reliance (1978), misplaced. hear extenuating cared present; undoubtedly were. Rather, Jurek, operating constitutional manner. present agree? coupled judge, leaves affirmative. 114 states "[b]ecause at" Ante, 369. proposes "[u]nless verdict" improper aside. 377. formulation obscures considerably Brown. Short ordering separate investigate knowledge discussions envision method attain level insists. Jury nature secret, processes recondite. demand assurance conducting judicial establish satisfied. 115 preceding discussion indicates, "reasonable juror" employed, unexceptionable, upheld. 116 Since dispositive 384, 16. challenge continue deal claim allowed statements personal characteristics victim, Paul recent Booth Maryland, 482 496, 2529, 440 object introduction evidence,3 nonetheless information proscribed impact statement. Orr Orr, 268, 274-275, 1102, 1109, 306 (1979); Illinois Gates, 213, 218, 2317, 2321, (1983); McGoldrick Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 430, 434-435, 670, 672-673, 849 (1940), uphold determination. 117 Attached Division Parole Probation's investigation memorandum Attorney, summarized interview caseworker brother sister-in-law. informed admission, stated: 118 'Paul Thomas came family six. very young removed parents [sic] custody neglect placed foster homes. (Removal Department Social Services prompted being hospitalized anemia malnutrition). 119 hyperactive hard handle resulted lot beatings guardians. ran away constantly homes placed. Paul, 15, started living streets. eventually sent Training School Boys. really home such. "I (Thomas Brown) keep touch visiting him possible. always felt help Paul. all, year older he." 120 ' "Paul tough life, bad breaks, family, home, nobody chance. sometimes secure prison, outside. Sure, crimes, wasn't violent. survive got involved people." 72, 14, 3, 22, 121 Several points memorandum. First, purport fall within of, law. ibid. 41, 4-609(c) describe friends victim. Nor contain opinions characterizations Brown's sister-in-law most, thumbnail sketch childhood frequent encounters authorities gave quick glimpse chose extinguish. 122 joined dissents supra, 515 519, 2539 2541, wrongly decided. Virtually limits introduce own history yet demonstrating loss society whole, through homicide. assess meaningfully moral culpability blameworthiness, essential extent harm defendant. large measure, prevents having necessary 123 rationale Booth, still correctly admitted ruled inadmissible containing elderly couple killed included material victims' friends, community, family's perceptions By contrast, summary barest details himself others. interpret foreclosing whatever error admitting Among recognized consider, are: disorder, specifically sets case." 413(g) introduced testimony mother, sixth-grade education, old trouble age. old, mother contact agencies behavior. underwent therapy child, diagnosed "minimal brain damage," medication. early developed drug alcohol problems, assigned German Children's Home 45-53. cellmate, Sentence 772A. Prior sentencing, 772A replaced 4-343, stipulated 4-343 similar, incorrect, 77, 2, 24, objection outdated opposed then-prescribed entirety disposed merits despite failure, 74; 12-13, proceeding. Presumably, error, 3A C. Wright, Federal Practice 856 (2d ed. 1982), otherwise bar claim. event, merits, jurisdiction federal established. 1109-1110, Franks Delaware, 154, 161-162, 2674, 2679, 667 (1978). passing, pretrial motion generally: "That 414, 772 restrict finder fact imposed." Record 24. 413(k)(2) provided: time, able dismiss life." 55, 1987 Md.Laws, ch. 237, amended read: death." perceive amendment. 413(b) affords invoked right limited context. contemplated consequences circumstance: deadlock, prescribed, warranted. argued here, nor suggest, rendered legally "irrelevant" vote. law, facts, proved, effect. legislature. 413(g); 38-40. attaching significance exercised subsequent process. "qualified" phrase "without punishment." 742, 881 than, Government contended, qualification. Ninth Circuit rejected Government's contention conveyed disagreed, received, "reasonably grant mercy, stand unqualified." 886. puzzling dissent's citation, 394, 2959-2960, (1976) judgment), different procedure Texas. indeed posed instructed. ably reports, "[o]ver again," once explain dissent, confuses repetition clarity, pronouncing "over again" way 391, 392, 383 394. Not believed that. infra, 381—383. obtained consequence answering questions: "[I]f go three. three." apparently When courtroom verdict, confused III, accordance 96. prosecutor colloquy "hung up language." example, age, 20, constituted i.e., youthfulness, 413(g)(5). noted: "There Mitigating Circumstance (youthful age)." 108. accepted prosecutor's "not terms justice system," id., 79, activity. marking "yes." Regardless blank, prevent youthfulness weight. lodged cases. Wooten-Bey appears difference: did, articulated nonstatutory more, reported "proven" fixed C.T. 83-1497C (City Ct., Prince George's Cty., Doering aspects forms. event Upon 86-CR-6128 (Cty. Baltimore sufficient dispose refrain sua sponte declaration, "victim statement" contravention last Term attempts, backdoor footnote, ante 381—383, persuasive pointing imputes reveals extraordinarily weak. urged "youthful age" favor, twice, "unlikely [he would] society." 57, effectively reform him. vacuity proffered hardly surprising them. seems recently modified 381-383. clarification welcome, amendment legal relevance today. oral acceptable improved ways. 11-12. submitted permissible. admissibility petition certiorari brief. Pet. Cert. 8-10; 21-24.

Classification Label: 0