Court Opinion

ID: 9495829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:11:11.575393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:13.137431
License: Public Domain

MELLOY, Circuit Judge,
with whom SMITH, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting.
I join in Section II.B.2. of Judge Hea-ney’s dissent. I agree with that portion of the dissent which finds that Moore’s due process rights were violated by the resen-tencing panel’s post hoc application of its newly defined aggravator.
As outlined in footnote 8 of Judge Hea-ney’s dissent, the parties were relying upon the Nebraska. Supreme Court’s construction of the “exceptional depravity” ag-gravator as set out in State v. Palmer, 224 Neb. 282, 399 N.W.2d 706 (1986). Evidence was presented and legal arguments made based upon each side’s analysis of the Palmer decision. I do not believe that Palmer can be read to give fair notice to either party that the age of the victim would be considered a factor in determining exceptional depravity. Likewise, for the reasons outlined in Judge Heaney’s dissent, I do not believe that the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Joubert, 224 Neb. 411, 399 N.W.2d 237 (1986), provided the necessary due process notice.
In both Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), and Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990), the Supreme Court held that the overbroad exceptional depravity aggravator can only be salvaged if “a State has adopted a constitutionally narrow construction of a facially vague aggravating circumstance, and if the State has applied that construction to the facts of the particular case .... ” Lewis, 497 U.S. at 779, 110 S.Ct. 3092. Thus, Walton and Lewis clearly set forth a two-step process. First, the overly broad aggravator has to be construed in a constitutional fashion, and only then can that construction be applied to the facts of the particular case. In this case, the aggravator was construed and narrowed after a full presentation of the evidence and without no7 tice to the defendant as to the standards to be applied in making the decision on imposition of the death penalty.
As the majority indicates, the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed the due process issue raised in this portion of Judge Hea-ney’s dissent. See State v. Moore, 250 Neb. 805, 553 N.W.2d 120, 133-35 (1996). *791Habeas relief can only be granted if the state’s adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (interpreting § 2254(d)(1)). I believe that the failure to first clearly set out the construction of the aggravator and advise the parties of that construction is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, specifically, Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Bouie makes clear that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a person is required to speculate as to the application of a statute. Id. at 350-54, 84 S.Ct. 1697. I find unpersuasive the Nebraska Supreme Court’s conclusion that Bouie is inapposite because it dealt with a statute which had been broadened in its application while the exceptional depravity aggravator in this case has been arguably narrowed. The core principle of Bouie, as supported by the Supreme Court decisions cited in that case, is that due process requires that the resentencing panel should have given notice to Moore as to the criteria which would guide its decision.
I do not agree with that portion of Judge Heaney’s dissent which would require the Nebraska Supreme Court to narrow the aggravator before remand to the trial court. • I believe the resentencing panel had the authority to narrow the ag-gravator and could have constitutionally done so prior to the hearing. I do join that portion of Section II.B.2. of Judge Heaney’s dissent which finds that Moore’s due process rights were violated by the “post hoc application of its newly defined ‘exceptional depravity’ aggravator.” For that reason, I would reverse the district court and remand for resentencing.