Legal Document

498 U.S. 1 111 S.Ct. 313 112 L.Ed.2d Robert Lee SHELLv.MISSISSIPPI. No. 89-7279. Oct. 29, 1990. PER CURIAM. The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition a writ certiorari are granted. To extent that Mississippi Supreme Court, 554 So.2d 887, relied on "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating factor affirming petitioner's death sentence, its decision is reversed. See Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 356, 108 1853, 100 372 (1988). Although trial court this case used limiting instruction define factor, not constitutionally sufficient. Godfrey Georgia, 446 420, 1759, 64 398 (1980); Cartwright Maynard, 822 F.2d 1477, 1489-1491 (CA10 1987) (en banc), aff'd, remanded Court further consideration light Clemons Mississippi, 494 738, 110 1441, 725 (1990). 2 It so ordered. Justice MARSHALL, concurring. 3 I concur reversal sentence. For benefit lower courts confronted with issue raised case, write separately clarify what understand basis disposition be. 4 Petitioner was convicted murder sentenced death. He appealed his sentence ground jury had been improperly instructed consider whether charged atrocious cruel," an we deemed unconstitutionally vague 361-364, 1857-1859, affirmed. reasoned distinguishable because limited charge jury. question provided: 5 "[T]he word heinous means extremely wicked shockingly evil; outrageously vile; cruel designed inflict high degree pain indifference to, even enjoyment of[,] suffering others." 905-906 (Miss.1989). 6 These definitions, held, cured any constitutional deficiency underlying "heinous, instruction. Id., at 906. 7 This conclusion error. issued supplemental defining terms nearly identical "limiting" given case: 8 " '[T]he term "heinous" "atrocious" "cruel" pitiless, pain, utter of, sufferings others.' 1488 banc). 9 Tenth Circuit sitting en banc held did cure defect instruction, see id., 1489-1491, and, judgment, implicitly agreed. 10 difficult discern. Obviously, can be give content statutory "is itself too provide guidance sentencer" only if instruction's own "definitions sufficient," is, "provide[s] some sentencer." Walton Arizona, 497 639, ----, 3047, 3057, 511 court's definitions (and ) clearly fail test; like themselves, phrases "extremely evil" "outrageously vile" could by '[a] person ordinary sensibility [to] fairly characterize almost every murder.' supra, U.S., 363, S.Ct., 1859 (quoting 428-429, 1764-1765, (1980) (plurality opinion)) (emphasis added). Indeed, there no meaningful distinction between these latter formulations wantonly vile, horrible inhuman" expressly invalidated supra. 11 Nor it consequence defined arguably more concrete fashion than "atrocious." Cf. 65, ---- (approving equating infliction "mental anguish physical abuse"). "It has long settled when submitted alternative theories unconstitutionality requires conviction [or verdict] set aside." Leary United States, 395 6, 31-32, 89 1532, 1546, 23 57 (1969); also Boyde California, 370, 379-380, 1190, 316 (1990) (acknowledging principle capital sentencing context). Even assuming permissibly "cruel," left two infirm, bases which find committed fashion. Bachellar Maryland, 397 564, 569-571, 90 1312, 1315-1316, 25 570 (1970) (condemning post hoc speculation as informed verdict). 12 There legally tenable distinction, sum, Cartwright.

Classification Label: 0