Court Opinion

ID: 9599350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:18:11.212145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:03.875169
License: Public Domain

Benham, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s decision to affirm the habeas court’s ruling that Davis is procedurally barred from pursuing his habeas claim that electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment under the Georgia and United States constitutions. For the reasons that follow, I would vacate that portion of the habeas court’s order denying Davis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus insofar as the order concluded that Davis was procedurally barred from pursuing his claim that execution by electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment, and remand the case for further proceedings.
It is in Davis’s habeas petition that he raised for the first time the argument that the use of electrocution as the means of execution is cruel and unusual punishment. As the majority notes, the habeas court did not address the merits of Davis’s contention because the court concluded that the failure to raise the “evolving standards of decency” argument at trial constituted a waiver under Black v. Hardin, 255 Ga. 239 (336 SE2d 754) (1985). I disagree with the imposition of the procedural bar without reference to whether Davis had or could have made a showing that the factual or legal basis of the claim was not available to Davis’s counsel on direct appeal. See Turpin v. *250Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 825 (493 SE2d 900) (1997).
The procedural bar to claims that are raised for the first time in a habeas proceeding exists to prevent litigants from reserving meritorious issues on direct appeal in an effort to interpose needless delay to the complete resolution of their cases. See Black v. Hardin, 255 Ga. at 239-240 (3) and (4) (holding that an available claim that is not raised on direct appeal is “waived” and that “there then exists a procedural bar to its consideration in habeas corpus proceedings”). Accordingly, Georgia law directs habeas courts to “consider whether [a petitioner has] . . . complied with Georgia procedural rules at trial and on appeal” and further provides that “absent a showing of cause for noncompliance with such requirement, and of actual prejudice, habeas corpus relief shall not be granted.” OCGA § 9-14-48 (d); see Turpin v. Mobley, 269 Ga. 635, 637 (2) (502 SE2d 458) (1998).
The required showing of cause necessary to overcome the procedural bar to defaulted claims is not easily made. This Court has recognized ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as one of the few causes that can, in certain circumstances, satisfy the requirement. Turpin v. Todd, supra, 268 Ga. 820 (2) (a) (“The procedural bar, however, may be overcome if the petitioner shows, first, an adequate cause for failing to raise the issue earlier and, second, actual prejudice resulting from the alleged error or errors.”). Our reasoning in Todd relied, in part, on persuasive holdings under federal law. Id. at 825. We also noted in Todd another showing of cause recognized under federal law, “a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. (quoting McClesky v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 494 (111 SC 1454, 113 LE2d 517) (1991)). I would now hold explicitly that the procedural bar to a claim that was not raised on direct appeal should be set aside upon a showing that the factual or legal basis for the claim was not reasonably available to counsel and that there is actual prejudice to the petitioner’s constitutional rights. Indeed, this class of exceptions to the limitation of the review of defaulted claims is nothing more than a necessary, logical extension of the “cause and prejudice test” set forth in Black v. Hardin. Black, 255 Ga. at 240 (4) (authorizing consideration of defaulted claims upon a “showing of adequate cause for failure to object or to pursue on appeal and a showing of actual prejudice to the accused”); see Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 209-210 (2) (510 SE2d 32) (1998); Cherry v. Abbott, 258 Ga. 517, 517-518 (371 SE2d 852) (1988).
Turning to the question of whether the habeas court correctly rejected Davis’s claim as procedurally barred because of Davis’s failure to raise it at trial and on direct appeal, I note that at the evidentiary hearing, Davis proffered numerous affidavits in support of his contention that electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment. *251These affidavits purported to show that executions by electrocution have been plagued by shocking and grotesque errors,1 that there-is a substantial risk that many if not all executions by electrocution result in the unnecessary infliction of pain and disfigurement,2 that societal mores surrounding execution by electrocution have undergone meaningful evolution since Davis’s sentence was imposed at trial, and that legislative developments across the nation evidence a national abandonment of electrocution as a means of execution.3 Davis’s post-hearing brief argued vigorously that electrocution has been steadily abandoned as an acceptable means of execution and that recent scientific inquiries into electrocution4 have cast serious *252doubt on its humaneness.
Davis contended that his proffered evidence of progressively-emerging changes in society’s views toward electrocution were indicative of “evolving standards of decency” sufficient to invoke the protections against cruel and unusual punishments embodied in the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in Article I, Section I, Paragraph VII of the Georgia Constitution and sufficient to overcome the procedural bar to his claim. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (78 SC 590, 2 LE2d 630) (1958); see also Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (109 SC 2934, 106 LE2d 256) (1989) (“While a national consensus against execution of the mentally retarded may someday emerge reflecting the ‘evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,’ there is insufficient evidence of such a consensus today.”); Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (109 SC 2969, 106 LE2d 306) (1989); Fleming v. Zant, 259 Ga. 687, 689-690 (3) (386 SE2d 339) (1989) (applying evolving standards of decency to the Georgia Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment). Davis’s argument suggests that, at the time of his direct appeal, the factual basis for an effective claim that electrocution was cruel and unusual punishment did not exist, or at least did not exist to the extent that it does now.
A federal district court was recently confronted with a similar situation, and I find that court’s resolution of this issue to be persuasive. In McNair v. Haley, 97 FSupp2d 1270 (M.D. Ala. 2000), a federal district court considered the application of the federal procedural default doctrine to the petitioner’s claim that evolving standards of decency barred his execution by electrocution under the federal constitution. The federal magistrate court which first considered the petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition had found that evidence of changing societal mores, of legislative developments, and of recent malfunctioning of the electric chair were merely additional evidence tending to support a previously existing claim and, therefore, that the exception where “the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel” did not apply. Id. at 1276. The federal district court disagreed, stating, “T[he] evidence does not simply support an eighth-amendment claim that electrocution offends evolving social standards of decency; instead, it is the very basis for the claim itself” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 1277. The court reiterated its holding by characterizing the evidence of evolving societal standards as “the necessary preconditions for the very claim itself.” Id. The court then concluded as follows: “Because these new facts are the basis for a claim that was not reasonably available during the petitioner’s state proceedings, this court finds cause to excuse the procedural default.” Id. at 1277-1278. Although this Court applies Georgia procedural law, I believe Davis’s situation to be quite similar and the *253district court’s resolution of the question to be persuasive. By its very nature, it is quite possible that Davis’s argument that “evolving standards of decency” demonstrate that electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment could not have been raised in the same manner in 1992 when his direct appeal was heard as it could have been raised in December 1996 when his evidentiary hearing was held. The very basis of Davis’s claim is that societal standards have changed.
Decided November 13, 2000
Reconsideration denied December 15, 2000.
Thomas H. Dunn, Michael Mears, Priya N. Lakhi, Charlotta Norby, for appellant.
Joseph L. Chambers, Sr., Wesley S. Homey, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Allison B. Vrolijk, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Mark E. Olive, amicus curiae.
Because the habeas court disposed of Davis’s claim that “evolving standards of decency” demonstrate a viable claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the State and federal constitutions without reference to whether Davis had or could have made a showing that “the factual or legal basis for [that] claim was not reasonably available to counsel” on Davis’s direct appeal, I would vacate that aspect of the habeas court’s order and remand the case for further consideration. On remand, the habeas court should determine whether Davis has made a proffer of evidence unavailable to him during his direct appeal that is sufficient to warrant consideration of his claim that electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment in light of evolving standards of decency. If the habeas court should find that Davis has made a sufficient proffer, the proffered evidence should be admitted, and a resolution of the claim on its merits should be made. In the interest of judicial economy, the habeas court should also consider any supplemental proffer Davis might make purporting to show further evolution of relevant “standards of decency” since the time of his evidentiary hearing.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Fletcher and Justice Sears join this dissent.

 See Affidavit of Deborah W. Denno, December 5, 1996, ¶ 18 (outlining “botched” electrocutions, including two, one of which was in Georgia, since Davis’s direct appeal).

 Affidavit of Clive A. Stafford Smith, December 5, 1996 (describing a 1996 electrocution in Georgia); Affidavit of Paula B. Hutchinson, December 5,1996 (describing a 1994 electrocution in Nebraska); Affidavit of Dale A. Baich, December 4,1996 (describing a 1996 electrocution in Nebraska); Affidavit of John Charles Boger, December 5, 1996 (describing a September 1991 (shortly after Davis’s trial) electrocution in Georgia).

 See Affidavit of Deborah W. Denno, December 5, 1996, ¶ 12 (“Altogether, 20 states have switched from electrocution to another method of execution. Moreover, five of these states have switched in the last three years.”); Affidavit of Richard C. Dieter, December 5, 1996 (outlining national legislative abandonment of electrocution, including decrease in use of electrocution from 1991 to date of affidavit); see also La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:569 (abolishing electrocution as of September 15, 1991); 1990 Pa. Laws 145 (abolishing electrocution, codified as 61 Pa. Code § 2121.1 until repealed by 61 Pa. Code § 3004 which also specifies lethal injection as method of execution); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2949.22 (allowing lethal injection as an alternative to electrocution as of July 1, 1996); Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-234 (allowing lethal injection as an alternative to electrocution as of January 1, 1995); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-100 (abolishing electrocution as of October 1, 1995); Ind. Code § 35-38-6-1 (abolishing electrocution as of July 1, 1995); N.Y. Correct. Law § 658 (abolishing electrocution for crimes committed on or after September 1, 1995); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-3-540 (allowing lethal injection as an alternative to electrocution as of June 7,1995); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 431.220 (abolishing electrocution where sentence is imposed after March 31, 1998, and providing lethal injection as an alternative for death sentences imposed before that date); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114 (abolishing electrocution for crimes committed on or after January 1, 1999, and providing lethal injection as an alternative for crimes committed before that date); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 922.105 (adopting lethal injection except in cases where electrocution is affirmatively elected, effective January 14, 2000); OCGA § 17-10-38 (providing for execution by lethal injection for crimes committed on or after May 1, 2000); 2000 Ga. Laws 947 (preserving execution by electrocution for persons sentenced to death for crimes committed before May 1, 2000).

 See Affidavit of John G. Webster, Ph.D., December 4, 1996 (describing expert review of apparatus for electrocution in Louisiana and opining that a determination of the degree of pain inflicted by Georgia’s apparatus would require similar expert review); Affidavit of Harold Hillman, Ph.D. (opining that electrocution is extremely painful, that a low percentage of electricity applied to the scalp penetrates the skull to reach the brain, and that death from electrocution is slow); Affidavit of Orrin Devinsky, M.D., December 5, 1996 (opining based, in part, on review of an execution in 1995 that “[e]lectrocution can be intensely painful” and that it is impossible to conclude that death is instantaneous); Affidavit of Donald D. Price, Ph.D., December 5, 1996 (outlining his ongoing research and opining that electrocution might induce extreme sensations of pain and “horror” by stimulation of certain portions of the brain).