Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 469 (2006) 549 U.S. 7 AYERS, Acting Warden v. BELMONTES. No. 05-493. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 3, 2006. Decided November 13, *471 Mark A. Johnson, for petitioner. Eric Multhaup, respondent. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General the State California, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Donald E. DeNicola, Deputy Solicitor L. Christoffersen, Supervising Counsel Record, Sacramento, CA, Petitioner. Mill Valley, Christopher H. Wing, Fernando Belmontes in Forma Pauperis. Manuel M. Medeiros, De Nicola, Robert R. Anderson, *472 Ward Campbell, JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered opinion Court. Belmontes, respondent here, was tried 1982 Superior California and County San Joaquin. A jury returned a verdict murder first degree then determined he should be sentenced to death. The issue before us concerns instruction sentencing phase. trial court, following statute effect, directed jury, with other instructions context discussed more detail, consider certain specific factors either as aggravating or mitigating. court further instructed "[a]ny circumstance which extenuates gravity crime even though it is not legal excuse crime." App. 184. Under then-applicable statutory scheme this general catchall factor codified at Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 190.3(k) (West 1988); referred "factor (k)." contended, on direct review, state collateral proceedings, federal habeas proceedings giving rise case, that (k) court's barred from considering his forward-looking mitigation evidencespecifically evidence likely would lead constructive life if incarcerated instead executed. alleged limitation, view, prevented relevant evidence, violation Eighth Amendment right present all mitigating capital proceedings. See, e.g., Penry 532 782, 797, 121 1910, 150 Ed. 2d 9 (2001); Skipper South Carolina, 476 1, 4-5, 8, 106 1669, 90 1 (1986); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 112, 102 869, 71 (1982). Court, affirming judgment sentence, rejected contention challenges. People 45 Cal. 3d 744, 799-802, 819, 248 Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310, 341-343, 355 (1988). In February 1994, after exhausting remedies, filed an amended petition. States District Eastern denied relief, Pet. Cert. 140a-141a, 145a, but divided panel Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed part, Woodford, 350 F.3d 861, 908 (2003). Over dissent eight judges, rehearing en banc. 359 1079 (2004). This granted certiorari, vacated judgment, remanded consideration light Brown Payton, 544 133, 125 1432, 161 334 (2005). 945, 1697, 518 On remand, again invalidated respondent's sentence; distinguished Payton grounds Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, applicable does apply here. Brown, 414 1094, 1101-1102 yet another dissent, Stokes, 427 *473 663 We 547 1110, 126 1909, 164 662 (2006), now reverse. I showed March 1981, while burglarizing home where two accomplices had attended party, unexpectedly encountered 19-year-old Steacy McConnell. Respondent killed her by striking head 15 20 times steel dumbbell bar. armed himself bar entering victim's home. See supra, 760-764, P.2d, 315-317. phase introduced show, inter alia, make positive contributions society structured prison environment. testified that, during previous term under Youth Authority (CYA), behaved way, working way number position fire crew CYA camp incarcerated. 44-45, 53. About time embraced Christianity entered into Christian sponsorship program. He admitted initially participated program spend away camp. Later, forming good relationship married couple who were sponsors, pursued religious baptized. Although commitment lapsed upon release CYA, once turn religion whenever could rededicate fully it. Id., 46-48, 53-55. Finally, answered affirmative when asked "prepared contribute anyway [he] can [he was] put rest [his] life." 58. Respondent's former chaplain hearing conversion appeared genuine. chaplain, describing "salvageable," expressed hope ministries given sentence. 79-83. An assistant similarly based past experience, adept counseling prisoners avoid mistakes made they leave prison. 95-96. And sponsors like son them been influence their own son. They also indicated various activities church. 99-103, 110-114. After presented parties closing arguments discussing how allowed provide statement. judge included disputed language, has since amended, see Jury Instr., Crim., 8.85(k) II earlier cases considered constitutional challenge instruction. supra; Boyde 494 370, 1190, 108 316 (1990). Boyde, claim (k), its focus circumstances "`extenuat[ing] crime,'" precluded unrelated crime, such defendant's background character. 377-378, 386, 1190. "proper inquiry," explained, "is whether there reasonable likelihood applied challenged *474 prevents constitutionally evidence." 380, Since defendant "had opportunity through argue character `extenuated' `excused' seriousness crime," saw "no reason believe jurors resist `long held society,' appropriate case counsel imposition sentence less than death." 382, 1190 (citing Lynaugh, 492 302, 319, 109 2934, 256 (1989)). During moreover, defense extensive regarding character, so construing preclude have required only "the transformed `favorable testimony virtual charade,'" U.S., 383, (quoting 479 538, 542, 107 837, 93 934 (1987)), disregard requiring "`consider received any part case,'" evaluated evidencethis time, relating postcrime rehabilitation, rather precrime 135-136, 1432. did come petition subject AEDPA. Relief available adjudication `resulted decision contrary to, involved unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, States.'" 141, 1432 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1)). prosecutor argued juryincorrectlythat permit rehabilitation concluded reasonably finding no violation. 142, 146-147, Accepting prosecutor's reading surprising conclusion remorse never serve lessen Furthermore, countering misimpression created prosecution's argument, argument behavior. "`during except you may hereafter instructed,'" prosecution itself "devoted substantial attention discounting [the evidence's] importance compared factors." 145-146, Hence, understood heard. 147, III As we inquire "whether Here, argues *475 effect evidence. And, comes collaterally attacking ruling. Unlike however, AEDPA's effective date. AEDPA deferential standards review are thus inapplicable. Woodford Garceau, 538 202, 210, 123 1398, 155 363 ground. F.3d, 1101-1102. It mistaken, find "reasonable probability" future potential. 1138. erred adopting narrow and, conclude, unrealistic interpretation (k). "Most naturally read," reasoned, "this allows bears commission excuses mitigates culpability offense." 1134. both explain, too confined. "The ... limit jury's `any crime.' might 1190; 141-142, just (Boyde) (Payton) "extenuat[e] some conduct count tending deserving death penalty. Cf. Skipper, 1669 (explaining inferences do "relate specifically [a defendant's] committed," those "`mitigating' sense `as basis death'" Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 604, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978) (plurality opinion))). failed heed full import Payton's holding, holding significance require So, too, counterintuitive capacity redeem works extenuate offense render him event, sought extrapolate behavior conduct, theory analogous good-character examined fall within (k)'s purview. 381, (describing including "strength character"). Both types suggest stemmed adverse irredeemable 1141-1142 (O'Scannlain, J., concurring dissenting part); cf. Johnson Texas, 509 350, 369, 113 2658, 290 (1993) (noting "forward-looking" future-dangerousness inquiry independent assessment personal culpability"). B Our one most consistent *476 parties' arguments, provided court. Each these will turn. recognized, future-conduct central defense. Indeed, although adduced troubled upbringing, use difficult "as crutch say am situation now, I'm here because that." 40. Given assertion, sentencingevidence chaplains, church himselfthe disregarded potential drew unlikely inference 837). improbable believed engaging exercise futility (and later discussed) open Arguments assumed relevant. guide jury. "a catchall." 153. experience detail. With respect fit indicated: "I'm sure really fits there. them. But think appears proper consideration." 154. These seemingly contradictory statements explained comments. suggested (quite understandably record) weak. stated: "You know, all, it's secret rests somewhat shaky." Ibid. opined taken "with grain salt." 155. realized persuasiveness ability thought weigh "religious awakening": "I suppose becausein fashion: value community later. You recall people talking about work something in. There's that. "On hand, fact someone opposed doesn't withholding life. mean let's around look side coin. Suppose said didn't belong talk minister. Would man deserve die merely that? So says religion, penalty, life? don't influencing respect. law contemplates right." *477 remarks confirmed analyze potential, "value community." what wanted do. commented contemplate conversion, mere discovered religion. Rather, manifested appeal, demonstrate community," illustrate awakening. Nothing convinced forbidden surely discount it; nothing led especially exactly "to weigh" deliberation. speak behalf. Respondent, showing remorse, imprisonment offered "an achieve goals try better yourself." 163. myself my improve myself." 164. pleas assess prospects determining impose. Defense counsel's confirm analysis. To sure, commenting going insult telling evidence] happened That in." 166. Read imply ignore conforming dichotomy itself, between extenuating circumstance. ("[a]ny crime"). did, fact, want take account became manifest near end argument. "people came [and] told [respondent]" game plan" 170. continued: "We're suggesting tip iceberg knows 20, 30, 40, 50 years sorts things do, system, learns set goals, whatever can." left believing Other quite implausible deem foreclosed mitigation. Before enumerating considerationfactors age, "[t]he presence absence prior felony conviction," id., 184, well catchallthe jury: "In penalty imposed shall instructed." 183. listing factors, "After having heard *478 counsel, consider, guided instructed. "If conclude outweigh circumstances, impose However, determine confinement without possibility parole." 185. gave supplemental factors: previously read list permits consider. facts deciding punishment case. "However, your examples reasons Mr. Belmontes. pay careful each factors. Any standing alone support case." 185-186. eliminate juror beyond bounds consideration. "all evidence," evidence" While broad command appraise qualifier "except instructed," 183, instruct fairly limitation theory. By contrast, response juror's question, receive psychiatric treatment sharp contrast aggravation (that enumerated considered) listed "merely examples," 186) clear view Coming back back, conveyed message finite aggravators against potentially infinite mitigators. "pay attention" ibid., compel give sole For fail word. advise exclusive simply examples. supposed deeds pointing much all. concludes deliberations "commonsense understanding *479 place [is] prevail over technical hair-splitting." far encouraging defense's supported due weight. concluding otherwise, cited queries confusion. initial question record, ask consequences failing reach unanimous verdict. 1135. response, reread portions stated 12 must agree, 190. sent deliberation, exchange took place: "JUROR HERN: statement listing? "THE COURT: listing, yes, ma'am. Of decide balance sheet? right. balancing process. Meyer? MEYER: either/or situation, one, cannot other? situation? Exactly. If decision. cannot, discharge you. HAILSTONE: Could question? know permissible. Is possible time? making decision." 191. decided Juror Hern's questions she (incorrectly) tablean error, Appeals' prompted clarifying confirming 1136. Hailstone's compounded problem, presumably necessary aid rehabilitation. 1137. analysis flawed. begin with, attributing Hern dilemma scope interpret questions, observed necessarily correct Cal.3d, 804, 344. least asking clarification California's overall process, requires juries (such age criminal history) labeled neither nor aggravating. surmised (but clarify), falls. 190.3 (providing "[i]n trier account" factors); generally Tuilaepa 512 967, 978-979, 114 2630, 129 750 (1994) "do sentencer finds ultimate sentence"). *480 Even assuming correctly interpreted ignored presupposes purports establish, namely, earlier, viewing "extenuat[ing] rubric "listing." psychiatric-care shows anything, implying prohibition inferences, readily explicable record care. our disposition unnecessary address reversing Court's (1993), raised Judge O'Scannlain separate Appeals. (opinion part). IV presented, addressed arguments. rule, reversed, opinion. ordered. Justice SCALIA, whom THOMAS joins, concurring. adhere limiting discretion violate Amendment. Walton Arizona, 497 639, 673, 3047, 111 511 (1990) (SCALIA, judgment). accepting jurisprudence contrary, arguably easy reiteration 372, need "be able manner every conceivable relevant." petitioner relied below, (C.A.9 2005) part), content join opinion, applies STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER join, dissenting. (1978), aside Ohio's unconstitutional unduly restricted *481 announcing Burger wrote: "There perfect procedure governmental authority used weight aspects proffered creates risk spite call severe When choice death, unacceptable incompatible commands Fourteenth Amendments." 605[, 2954] opinion). 1982, scant four Lockett. 310 Yet sentencing, remained significant residual confusion Constitution obligated nevertheless Easley, 34 858, 875-880, 196 309, 671 813, 823-827 (1983) sides). plainly rested assumption commanded "shall impose" limited 11 discrete categories 1988). relates severity convicted.[1] eleventh (k)" authorized *482 190.3(k), restrictive language unmistakable properly crime. Just year evinced considerable discomfort unconstitutionality instructions, inserted critical footnote effectively amending expanding sentence: order misunderstanding future, courtsin instructing [factor (k)]should inform crime' `aspect [the] proffers death.'" 3d, 878, n. 10, 826, 10 (emphasis added).[2] Easley late help respondent, evident concern permitted "extenuates crime" proved prescient. (1986)decided affirmed conviction therefore Griffith Kentucky, 314, 322-323, 708, 649 (1987)we expressly Powell's retained long foreclose tend reduce 11, Apart traditional "[e]vidence concerning participation emotional history," Powell exclude proceeding. 1669. majority, expansive view. recognized probative force Skipper's excluded "would relate petitioner's committed, [there `mitigating' Lockett, 2954 opinion); emphasis added). then, clear: broader category normally noncapital sentenced, rewrote *483 resolved latitude restrict "tend (Powell, underscore, pervaded aspect hearing. addled judge, prosecutor, andinevitablythe themselves. At hearing, casewhich consisted mainly 795, 338-339respondent countered grandfather mother. focused almost entirely background: His father drank excess savagely beat wife; parents divorced old; mother remarried, 14 point control, 1979, (Youth Authority); release, live mother, kept touch telephone very close 15-year-old sister. 5-22. Next, Martinez wife Darlene, friends seen released Authority. 26-27, 35. best wedding wedding, lot together, Martinez's car, drinking beer, smoking marijuana. 25, 28. Darlene's born-again Christian, visited Darlene husband Authority, Christian. 35-36. childhood, "can't went describe relationships 41-5. developed program, Beverly Fred Haro. 46-48. Upon started problems abandoned commitment, regained 53-54. described attempt contribution society. 55-58. cross-examination, sincerity commitment. 58-65. day, Reverend Dale Barrett Don Miller, ministers worked location held. Authority's M-2 matched Haros. 74-76. involvement interactions "salvageable." 76-82. Miller *484 belief speaking 92, 95-96; 96 (testifying "[d]efinitely... system sort activity"). Haros meeting experiences him. 99-104; 110-112. grown embrace 101-102; 112-113. Taken whole, supports three conclusions: First, excepting convictions, dispute credibility witnesses; second, little extenuated crime; third, afforded principled imposing began "th[e] circumstances" "weigh other." 148. "there sympathy passion," emphasized kind tells [i.e., that] arises mitigation," 149 repeated duty "simpl[y] weig[h]" "will tell account," 150-151, carefully factor, 151-157. turned directly "that committed doubt stating again, supporting questioned: "[I]s awakening penalty? That's issue, weigh, Ultimately, concluded: .... immediately thereafter, conclusion, asserted *485 "[a] dreadful ...." 160. Following directly. childhood explain mistakes, Christianity, crutch. 162. keep life, explaining future. attorney, John Schick, effort persuade somehow Instead, spoke improved met Haro shaped him, observing plays "very, vital function anybody's Schick care emphasize "does excuse" murder; rather, let "know man." 167, "cannot outside," needed punished, prison, meaning, teeth ...," 169. Critically, contended could, chance, "contribute sum, agreed none detract insisted "insult" "excuses happened." conference circumscribed lifted principal verbatim forth statute, refused request 142-143. Among requested perform acts violence. Brief 5, 1. Those properindeed, probably mandatedunder Skipper. benefit "none [of proposed instructions] can't conceal determinative 142. Agreeing, include astonishing already "seem over-laden aggravation." particular importance, modified contain exhaustive *486 141. instruction, ante, 477-478, reference nonstatutory "`You [relating defendant, Belmontes,] sentence.'" 25-26; contra, 186. declined invite "potentially mitigators," today, 478. accurate summary rulings circumstancesbut offense. next morning, instructions. opened unyielding admonition "[y]ou accept follow rules you," 175, aloud written copy deliberations, ibid. boilerplate 176-183, "determining defendant," "consider added), applicable," 183-184. proceeded repeat statute. Except "age related itself. supra. last them, No "any opinion)). Emphasizing 185 words, reaching decision, "applicable factors"here, seven finished readingand others. points out, 478, sentence...," afterwards, "these factors" (save defendant) encompassed natural lessens irrelevant (in words) *487 "simple weighing" tasked performing. 150. V Questions six different days deliberation ample clarify behalf credited permissible Far eliminating obvious confusion, responses cemented impression jurors' lone specified, other. lunch break, reconvened answer appear record; "must [it] can," 185, 188-189 Because Skipper-type judge's functional equivalent colloquy (Hailstone, Wilson, Norton, Huckabay) verdict,[3] series reflecting instructions: *488 strongly "listing"the factorswas "balanc[ing] sheet." difficult, impossible, "extenuate[d] crime"[4] chance 157, (2005) (SOUTER, dissenting) ("[I]t stretch affected subsequent experience"). inviting open-ended answers constraints "either/or" make.[5] actual task run Very forbade opinion) (requiring show evidence"). VI upsets stand. Justices, adopted new "legal standard reviewing claimed impermissibly 378, approved blatantly atextual unadorned Applying dubious "not Boyde's prevent character." *489 impossible won prize dance choreography "he useful behind bars," hold found talents "overall strategy portray culpable defendants disadvantaged strengths," fell ambit Thus, explicitly, assumes "evidence defendant] pose danger 4, (recognizing "probable committed"); 164, ("Boyde purport called changes fundamental views"). contends precrime, setting. Not falls purview, reasoning conclusion. Similarly, recent bearing certiorari Circuit's grant relief "was limits 2254(d)." 136, was, heavily 1214. joined five-Justice majority Congress' defer conclusions state-court judges makes difference," 148, (concurring opinion), penalty-phase violated [because] evidencenamely, conversion," (citation, alteration, internal quotation marks omitted). deference AEDPA, cause enough mandate outcome occurred same Payton's, compare 156, ("`[Y]ou *490 instructed'"), 183 (same), persuasive SOUTER's powerful majority's SOUTER pointed out supplement legislature 158, Without changes, concluded, development wake odds common attitudes English language." 158-159, Moreover, deal discloses among jurors, does. 486-488. Nor involve attorney who, bolstering allow "by here," Therefore, ignoring significantly procedural posture, short compelling result reaches today. VII Instead lay certainly words "circumstance ordinary insists whatsoever seems me uncanny predict opinions lawyers meant. Surely followed Greer 483 756, 766, 3102, 97 618 (1987) "presumption" instructions). highly parsing depends linguistic distinctions occur trained lawyers. 477 (calling "dichotomy circumstance"). confused. d[oes] Ante, 474. blithely characterizes "incorrec[t]," accept. present-day oral unless Tr. Oral Arg. 8-9 (retreating "[i]t be" constitutional). seriously insist group laypersons anticipating outside apparently believes *491 meant said, 475-476, comment credibility, 476. misreading record. lacked sincere powerfully however sincerely ("I right" added)). inherently "commented 477, "[n]othing Admittedly, distinction "circumstance[s] severity, 475 (internal unlikely, note subtle distinction, significant. interpretations phrase includes "[a]lmost definition reduces responsibility commission." 12, generously, remains unconstitutional. unpersuasive premise understand "remorse" species serves true, divine "extenuate sentence." 475.[6] VIII Unless guessed breadth rule announced product Ironically, (who wrote plurality Lockett) it) extend Burger, C.J., Rehnquist, authors themselves disagreed scope, sanguine members knew, notwithstanding *492 undertake. hereinafter contemplates" lessened offense, 155, reinforced confine listing. saying 166, doubted propriety speculating today heaps speculation strange step confines Holding insists, charade," 474 omitted) but "charade" paid heed. considering; confused appropriately considered. error sufficient warrant spent half row. Lackey 514 1045, 115 1421, 131 304 (1995) (STEVENS, respecting denial certiorari). incremental carrying date outweighed interest maintaining confidence fairness proceeding results State's citizens. Gardner Florida, 430 349, 358, 1197, 51 393 (1977) Accordingly, respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] are: "(a) convicted existence special true "(b) activity attempted violence express implied threat "(c) conviction. "(d) Whether extreme mental disturbance. "(e) victim participant homicidal consented act. "(f) moral justification extenuation conduct. "(g) acted duress domination person. "(h) appreciate criminality conform requirements impaired disease defect, affects intoxication. "(i) "(j) accomplice relatively minor. "(k) 1988 version "[a]fter section," [2] Legislature responded sympathetic offers trial." (brackets amendment confirms [3] can't, Judge, happens? WILSON: know. Okay. happen, happen. "MR. SCHICK: Maybe Do think, matter? going. NORTON: tough, yes. continue discuss matter go another, there? possibility. HUCKABAY: time. so. time." 190-191. [4] (1986), "culpability committed." concurrence agreed: "Almost definition," prisoner's "neither [5] Hailstone piece evidencethe get prisonthe answer, legally correct, lent environment [6] suggestion inconsistent 480, dangerousness adequate youth. Whatever connection exist youth dangerousness, capable redemption

Classification Label: 0