Court Opinion

ID: 9480033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:35:52.323159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:26.329461
License: Public Domain

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s effectively setting aside the death penalty in this case on grounds of what amounts to the failure of the trial judge, sua sponte, specifically to instruct the jury that it was free to grant mercy solely because of the defendant’s youth at the time of the offense.
With respect to Gary Graham’s youth as a sentencing factor, the jury was presented with nothing more than the fact that he was seventeen years old at the time he committed the offense. That isolated fact, without further development, does not furnish a base upon which a reasonable juror could rationally conclude that Graham bears less moral culpability than other citizens. See Kelly v. Lynaugh, 862 F.2d 1126, 1133 n. 12 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3263, 106 L.Ed.2d 608 (1989).
I do not dispute that age at the time of the offense can be a relevant mitigating factor. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. *899104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 877, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). The reason that youth can be a relevant mitigating factor is the “recognition that minors, especially in their earlier years, generally are less mature and responsible than adults. Particularly ‘during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment’ expected of adults.” Eddings, 102 S.Ct. at 877 (quoting Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 635, 99 S.Ct. 3035, 3044, 61 L.Ed.2d 797 (1979)). Youth can mitigate against imposition of the death penalty because a juror could conclude that a defendant who commits a criminal act attributable to that defendant’s youth is less culpable than a defendant who has no such excuse, and that such a defendant should not receive the ultimate penalty. See California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 107 S.Ct. 837, 841, 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring).
As presented in this case, Graham’s youth presented no mitigating factor beyond the scope of the special issues. Graham’s youth is obviously relevant to the first and second special issues of the Texas statute. In his argument to this court, Graham does not indicate how such evidence had relevance beyond the scope of the special issues. Moreover, during the sentencing phase of his trial, he introduced no evidence that would support such additional relevance. Specifically, Graham’s counsel only urged the sentencing jury to consider his youth in deciding the answer to special issue no. 2, whether Graham was likely to pose a continuing threat to society. See Russell v. Lynaugh, 892 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir.1989) (Texas statute constitutionally applied when mitigating evidence specifically proffered in context of special issues).
Nor did Graham introduce any evidence to suggest that the murder he committed was in any way attributable to his youth. Furthermore, in his closing argument during the sentencing phase of the trial, Graham’s counsel did not even argue that Graham’s crimes were attributable to his youth:
Gary Graham, 17 years old, went on a rage for 7 days. What did he do? He harassed people. He stuck guns in their face[s]. He shot an individual and he killed another individual. What was it in response to? Why did he become so aggressive? What makes an individual go on a rage for 7 days? Drugs? Alcohol? Maybe. Life? Maybe.
In my view, no special instruction is necessary unless there is at least some evidence or argument from which a juror could reasonably conclude that a defendant who commits a criminal act attributable to that defendant’s youth is less culpable than a defendant who has no such excuse. See Penry, 109 S.Ct. at 2947 (quoting California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 545, 107 S.Ct. 837, 841, 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring)).
Nevertheless, if a juror, even in the absence of any evidence or argument suggesting as much, were convinced that Graham’s moral culpability was somehow reduced because his crime was in some unspecified way attributable to his youth, that juror would surely reason that because youth is by nature a transitory condition, Graham would cease to act violently when he outgrew his adolescence. Such a juror would have been able to give full mitigating effect to the fact of Graham’s youth by giving a negative answer to the future dangerousness inquiry of the second special issue.
Furthermore, Graham presented no evidence regarding psychological characteristics of his adolescence and their effects on his perceptions and behavior, and points to no such effects in his arguments to this court. Unlike Penry, Graham has made no attempt to relate these factors to his own situation. Here, if a juror believed, even in the absence of any evidence to support such a belief, that Graham, because of his youth, had a limited ability to control impulsive behavior, evaluate the future consequences of his conduct, and appreciate the possibility and finality of death, that juror was free to give a negative answer to the first special issue as well, whether the defendant acted deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that death would result.
*900Therefore, in my view, the jury was able, without the need for any special instructions, to take into account all of the characteristics associated with Graham’s youth, and give that mitigating evidence full effect, in answering the first and second special issues under the Texas statute.
The question is whether the jury instructions provide the jury with a vehicle for expressing a “reasoned moral response” to the mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant. Penry, 109 S.Ct. at 2952 (emphasis added). The majority fails to identify in the case before us and on the evidence before us how the jury was unable to make a reasoned moral response to the isolated and undeveloped fact of Graham’s youth. The majority acknowledges that youth is relevant to the first and second special issues, but believes that the jury should have been permitted to exercise a discretionary grant of mercy, notwithstanding Graham’s moral or personal culpability, simply because of Graham’s youth. In my view, such a response by the jury in this case, where there is no evidence or argument that Graham’s crime was attributable to his youth or that any characteristics of his youth have relevance to his personal or moral culpability beyond the scope of the statutory issues, would not be a reasoned moral response, but an unreasoned response. I cannot agree with the majority that the defendant has a constitutional right to such unbridled jury discretion. The evidence before the jury simply offered no basis upon which a reasoned moral judgment would excuse the death penalty in this case.
Finally, the majority’s formulation of the Penry rule omits any reference to the Supreme Court’s statement that the jury must, upon request, be given instructions that allow the jury to give effect to evidence about the defendant’s character, background, or the circumstances of the crime that is relevant to the defendant’s moral culpability beyond the scope of the special issues. Penry, 109 S.Ct. at 2945. Graham’s counsel did not object to the jury instructions that were given, nor did he request any additional instructions or a fourth special issue. In my view, a request for instructions is an integral part of a Penry claim. Cf. Mayo v. Lynaugh, 893 F.2d 683 (5th Cir.1989) (suggestion for rehearing en banc pending) (“Mayo’s counsel satisfied the prerequisites of the claim by offering mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase.”).
For the foregoing reasons, I believe that Graham’s sentencing jury was fully able to give a “reasoned moral response” to the fact of Graham’s youth when it answered the special issues of the Texas statute. Because I believe that the Texas statute was constitutionally applied to Graham, I respectfully dissent.