Court Opinion

ID: 9429359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:30.906255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:19.202572
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Powell joins, concurring in the judgment.
Death as a punishment is unique in its severity and irre-vocability. Since Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), this Court’s decisions have made clear that States may impose this ultimate sentence only if they follow procedures that are designed to assure reliability in sentencing *959determinations. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 189, 196-206 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 247-253 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U. S. 633 (1977); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978); Bell v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 637 (1978); Green v. Georgia, 442 U. S. 95 (1979); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982). We have “attempted to provide standards for a constitutional death penalty that would serve both goals of measured, consistent application and fairness to the accused.” Eddings, supra, at 111. Again this Term we have reaffirmed our adherence to these principles. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 874-880 (1983). Our decisions, taken as a whole, have given substantial content to the guarantees embodied in the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Particular features of state sentencing schemes may be sufficiently inadequate, unreliable, or unfair that they violate the United States Constitution. Particular death penalty determinations may demonstrate that a State’s sentencing procedure is constitutionally inadequate in one or more respects. See, e. g., Godfrey v. Georgia, supra. But this is not such a case. After giving careful consideration to this case and others decided by the Supreme Court of Florida, I am convinced that Florida has retained the procedural safeguards that supported our decision to uphold the scheme in Proffitt v. Florida, supra, and that the death sentence imposed upon Elwood Barclay is consistent with federal constitutional requirements. My conclusions rest on my understanding of certain aspects of Florida’s capital sentencing procedures that are not adequately explained in the plurality opinion.
Although I agree with the plurality’s conclusion, and with much of what is said in its opinion, I think it important to write separately. The plurality acknowledges, of course, the constitutional guarantees that have been emphasized in *960our cases since Gregg. But in some of its language the plurality speaks with unnecessary, and somewhat inappropriate, breadth. The Court has never thought it sufficient in a capital case merely to ask whether the state court has been “so unprincipled or arbitrary as to somehow violate the United States Constitution.” Ante, at 947. Nor does a majority of the Court today adopt that standard. A constant theme of our cases — from Gregg and Proffitt through God-frey, Eddings, and most recently Zant — has been emphasis on procedural protections that are intended to ensure that the death penalty will be imposed in a consistent, rational manner. As stated in Zant, we have stressed the necessity of “genuinely narrow[ing] the class of persons eligible for the death penalty,” and of assuring consistently applied appellate review. 462 U. S., at 877, 890. Accordingly, my primary purpose is to reemphasize these limiting factors in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida.
r- — I
Florida has adopted a trifurcated procedure for identifying the persons convicted of a capital felony who shall be sentenced to death. See Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (1975). Procedurally it consists of a determination of guilt or innocence by the jury, an advisory sentence by the jury, and an actual sentence imposed by the trial judge. Although the court has the authority to reject a jury’s recommendation of either life imprisonment or death, the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it will scrutinize with special care any death sentence that is imposed after a jury has recommended a lesser penalty.1
*961Analytically the trial judge must make three separate determinations in order to impose the death sentence: (1) that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that the existing statutory aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by statutory mitigating circumstances;2 and (3) that death is the appropriate penalty for the individual defendant.3
*962It is instructive to compare Florida’s three-part sentencing scheme with Georgia’s two-stage procedure, which we have reviewed and upheld this Term. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983). Under each of these schemes, the defendant may not be sentenced to death unless the sentencing authority — the jury in Georgia, the judge in Florida — makes a threshold determination guided by specific statutory instructions. Georgia’s threshold test is simple: a finding of one valid statutory aggravating circumstance is sufficient to make the defendant eligible for the death penalty. In Florida, that is only the first of two required steps before the threshold is crossed.4 The court must also determine *963whether any of the statutorily enumerated mitigating circumstances exist,5 and if so, whether they outweigh the statutory aggravating circumstances. If they do, life imprisonment rather than a death sentence is required. Shortly after the enactment of the current statute, the Florida Supreme Court explained:
“ ‘[T]he procedure to be followed by the trial judges and juries is not a mere counting process of X number of aggravating circumstances and Y number of mitigating circumstances, but rather a reasoned judgment as to what factual situations require the imposition of death and which can be satisfied by life imprisonment in light of the totality of the circumstances present . . . Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d 998, 1003 (1977), quoting State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1, 10 (Fla. 1973).
As we noted in Proffitt: “This determination requires the trial judge to focus on the circumstances of the crime and the character of the individual defendant.” 428 U. S., at 251.
In both Florida and Georgia, even if the statutory threshold has been crossed and the defendant is in the narrow class of persons who are subject to the death penalty, the sentencing authority is not required to impose the death penalty. In Georgia, the jury is expressly given broad discretion to choose between death and life imprisonment, taking into account all relevant information — aggravating and mitigating— about the character and background of the accused and the circumstances of the crime. See Zant v. Stephens, supra. In Florida, since more information has already been taken *964into account in crossing the threshold, the third-stage determination is more circumscribed — whether, even though the first two criteria have been met, it is nevertheless not appropriate to impose the death penalty. Cases reaching this conclusion tend to fall into either or both of two general categories:6 (1) those in which statutory aggravating circumstances exist, and arguably outweigh statutory mitigating circumstances, but they are insufficiently weighty to support the ultimate sentence;7 and (2) those in which, even though statutory mitigating circumstances do not outweigh statutory aggravating circumstances, the addition of non-statutory mitigating circumstances tips the scales in favor of life imprisonment.8
*965Apparently believing that the Federal Constitution so required, the Florida Supreme Court has adopted a rule that the “aggravating circumstances specified in the statute are exclusive, and no others may be used for that purpose.” Purdy v. State, 343 So. 2d. 4, 6 (1977); Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 882, 885 (1979); see Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133, 1139 (1976); Provence v. State, 337 So. 2d. 783, 786 (1976).9 Not only has it held that nonstatutory aggravating circumstances do not satisfy the first threshold criterion — whether statutory aggravating circumstances exist.10 It has also held *966that evidence supporting nonstatutory aggravating factors simply may not be introduced into evidence at any stage in the sentencing proceeding. See Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d, at 1002.11 Under Florida law, the introduction of such evidence is error, although under some circumstances, the Florida Supreme Court treats it as harmless error.12
The Florida rule that statutory aggravating factors must be exclusive affords greater protection than the Federal Constitution requires. Although a death sentence may not rest *967solely on a nonstatutory aggravating factor, see Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S., at 876-878, the Constitution does not prohibit consideration at the sentencing phase of information not directly related to either statutory aggravating or statutory mitigating factors, as long as that information is relevant to the character of the defendant or the circumstances of the crime. Zant, supra, at 878-879; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 164, 196-197, 206; Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S., at 242, 248, 256-257, n. 14. As we recently wrote in Zant, “[w]hat is important at the selection stage is an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.” 462 U. S., at 879.
In this case the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial judge had properly determined that at least four statutory aggravating circumstances were present. Barclay v. State, 343 So. 2d, at 1266, 1270-1271 (1977). Petitioner alleges that none of those four aggravating circumstances withstands scrutiny under Florida law and under our prior cases, including Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980). But it is not necessary to agree with the Florida Supreme Court’s appraisal of all four findings. Under Florida law, if there are no statutory mitigating circumstances,13 one valid statutory *968aggravating circumstance will generally suffice to uphold a death sentence on appeal even if other aggravating circumstances are not valid.14 The Federal Constitution requires no more, at least as long as none of the invalid aggravating circumstances is supported by erroneous or misleading information. See Zant v. Stephens, supra, at 887-889.
I do not accept petitioner’s contention that none of the statutory aggravating circumstances found by the trial court may be sustained under Florida law and the Federal Constitution. Tr. of Oral Arg. 15. The trial court found that the murder was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” because the victim “was knocked to the ground and repeatedly stabbed by Barclay as he writhed in pain begging for mercy.” App. 46, 133; see id., at 9-14 (statement of facts in sentencing order); 343 So. 2d, at 1271, n. 6.15 The court also found that the crime took place in the commission of a kidnaping, because “the defendants picked up the hitch-hiking victim with intent to murder him. They refused to take him to the place requested and by force and/or threats kept him in their car until they found an appropriate place for the murder.” App. 126; see id., at 39. It is not our role to reexamine the trial court’s findings of fact, which have been affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. Assuming those facts to be true, there is no federal constitutional infirmity in these two findings of statutory aggravating circumstances.
Petitioner challenges the trial court’s findings that in committing the murder, he “KNOWINGLY CREATED A GREAT RISK OF DEATH TO MANY PERSONS,” and that the murder was committed to “HINDER THE LAW*969FUL EXERCISE OF ANY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS.” Id., at 122-125, 128-131.16 He does not, however, dispute the facts recited by the trial court in support of these findings— that he and his colleagues had stalked several potential white victims before picking Stephen Orlando, and that they had sent tapes to a radio station urging mass racial violence. See Brief for Petitioner 5-6, 9-10. This evidence was properly before the advisory jury and the judge because it was admissible at the guilt phase of the proceeding. Thus, whether or not these particular aggravating circumstances have been narrowly defined by the Florida Supreme Court, this case— like Zant v. Stephens — involves challenged findings of “statutory aggravating circumstance [s] . . . whose terms plausibly described aspects of the defendant’s background that were properly before the jury and whose accuracy was unchallenged.” 462 U. S., at 887.
I am also unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the trial court committed reversible error of constitutional magnitude by considering nonstatutory aggravating factors. In its discussion of the statutory aggravating circumstance that the defendant was “under sentence of imprisonment” when he committed the murder, the court noted that petitioner had not been in prison at the time of the offense but that he had an extensive prior criminal record which was “an aggravating circumstance.” The court also noted that petitioner’s previous conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny was “more of an aggravating than a negative circumstance,” even though the record did not show whether *970that offense had involved violence, as required by the terms of one of the statutory aggravating circumstances. App. 120-122. But even though, under state law, these factors did not support findings of statutory aggravating circumstances, the information appears to have been properly before the advisory jury and the judge. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that information about the defendant’s prior criminal record may be presented during the sentencing phase to negate one of the statutory mitigating factors. See Booker v. State, 397 So. 2d 910, 918 (1981). In any event, nothing in the Federal Constitution bars the introduction of a defendant’s prior criminal record, which is highly relevant to his individual background and character. See Zant, 462 U. S., at 887-888; Proffitt, 428 U. S., at 252, n. 9.17
Similarly, the judge’s candid exposition of his deeply felt concern about racial crimes had no bearing on any statutory aggravating circumstance, but in and of itself it does not undermine the legitimacy of the ultimate sentence.18 The sentencing process assumes that the trier of fact will exercise judgment in light of his or her background, experiences, and values. Just as sentencing juries “maintain a link between *971contemporary community values and the penal system,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 190, sentencing judges “‘with experience in the facts of criminality posses[s] the requisite knowledge to balance the facts of the case against the standard criminal activity . . . Proffitt, supra, at 252, n. 10, quoting State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d, at 8. Of course, if the criteria imposed by law are not satisfied in a particular case, a trial judge’s reactions based on his personal experiences cannot justify the death penalty. But that is not the case here.
Petitioner emphasizes, however, that the jury recommended life imprisonment and that the court rejected that recommendation. As we held in Proffitt, a State may constitutionally give the court the authority to accept or reject the jury’s conclusion. 428 U. S., at 252. The court’s decision must itself be consistent with constitutional standards, but those standards were not violated in this case. As petitioner’s own statement of facts makes clear, the jury was erroneously informed by defense counsel in closing argument that petitioner “had never been convicted of a crime and had no criminal charges pending against him.”19 This statement may have led the jury to believe that there was a statutory mitigating circumstance — no substantial history of prior criminal activity. But the presentence report revealed that petitioner had previously served six months for the felony of uttering a forgery, had been on probation for the felony of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and had been arrested on several misdemeanor charges and convicted of at least one.20 The judge could properly consider that information in deciding whether to accept or reject the jury’s recommendation.21 In addition, even if the jury *972found that there were nonstatutory mitigating factors, it is clear that the trial court knew of each of the factors petitioner recites and did not find them persuasive.22 If we find that proper procedures have been followed, in the end it is not our function to decide whether we agree with the 7-to-5 majority of the advisory jury or with the trial judge. The Florida Supreme Court has held that, under state law, it was permissible on these facts for the court to reject the jury’s recommendation of life imprisonment. 343 So. 2d, at 1271.23
Finally, petitioner contends that the Florida Supreme Court has abdicated its constitutionally mandated responsibility to perform meaningful appellate review. This contention cannot stand or fall on a single case, particularly since the rather unusual circumstances in this case help to explain the limited analysis provided by the Florida Supreme Court. On direct appeal from the initial imposition of the death sen*973tence in 1975, it appears that petitioner did not challenge the validity of any of the statutory aggravating circumstances. Pet. for Cert. 2. The sentence was affirmed. Most of the Florida case law on which petitioner now relies was developed after the initial decision in his case. See generally Brief for Petitioner 29-83. Barclay did not receive the benefit of this case law because of the limited nature of the Florida Supreme Court’s remand in light of this Court’s decision in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977). When that court vacated the death sentence and ordered the trial court to hold a hearing to permit petitioner to rebut undisclosed information in the presentence report, it applied a uniform procedure which expressly limited the scope of the trial court’s proceedings and the scope of appellate review to “matters related to compliance with this order.” 362 So. 2d 657, 658 (1978).24 The court’s subsequent opinion accordingly dealt only with the presentence report and treated the previous affirmance of the death sentence as “law of the case” with regard to the aggravating circumstances.
More generally, the question is whether, in its regular practice, the Florida Supreme Court has become a rubber stamp for lower court death-penalty determinations. It has not. On 212 occasions since 1972 the Florida Supreme Court has reviewed death sentences; it has affirmed only 120 of them. . The remainder have been set aside, with instructions either to hold a new sentencing proceeding or to impose a life sentence. In making these judgments the court has the benefit of specific written findings by the trial court, setting *974forth the facts underlying each aggravating and mitigating circumstance. See State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d, at 8. Although no appellate court’s written decisions, including those of the Florida Supreme Court, are always a model of clarity and analysis, the actual decisions by that court have confirmed one of the premises supporting our decision in Proffitt—
“The Florida capital-sentencing procedures thus seek to assure that the death penalty will not be imposed in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Moreover, to the extent that any risk to the contrary exists, it is minimized by Florida’s appellate review system, under which the evidence of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances is reviewed and reweighed by the Supreme Court of Florida ‘to determine independently whether the imposition of the ultimate penalty is warranted.’ Songer v. State, 322 So. 2d 481, 484 (1975). See also Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632, 637 (1974).” 428 U. S., at 253.
The cursory analysis in the two opinions upholding petitioner’s death sentence — which admittedly I do not applaud— does not require us to set aside the sentence when we have determined that the sentence itself does not suffer from any constitutional flaw.
I therefore concur in the judgment.

 Gilven v. State, 418 So. 2d 996, 999 (1982); Lewis v. State, 398 So. 2d 432, 438 (1981); Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538, 542 (1980); McCaskill v. State, 344 So. 2d 1276, 1280 (1977); Burch v. State, 343 So. 2d 831, 834 (1977); Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (1975) (“In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ”).

 The text sets forth the statutory procedure that existed at the time of petitioner’s trial in April 1975. Subsequently the Florida Legislature amended the law to prescribe, at stage (2), a determination whether the statutory aggravating circumstances are outweighed by any mitigating circumstances, statutory or nonstatutory. 1979 Fla. Laws, ch. 79-353. See Moody v. State, 418 So. 2d 989, 995 (Fla. 1982) (setting aside death sentence because sentencing order did not make clear whether the trial court had considered nonstatutory mitigating circumstances). The amended statute, which became effective in July 1979, was not applied to petitioner in his subsequent resentencing proceeding. Brief for Petitioner 23, n. 7.
As long as evidence of mitigation was not excluded from consideration at the sentencing proceeding, see Songer v. State, 365 So. 2d 696, 700 (Fla. 1978) (construing pre-1979 statute), the version of stage (2) applied in petitioner’s case was consistent with our decisions in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), and Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982). Neither of these cases establishes the weight which must be given to any particular mitigating evidence, or the manner in which it must be considered; they simply condemn any procedure in which such evidence has no weight at all. See, e. g., Eddings, supra, at 114-115, and n. 10. The Constitution does not require that nonstatutory mitigating circumstances be considered before the legal threshold is crossed and the defendant is found to be eligible for the death sentence. It is constitutionally acceptable to bring such evidence into the decisionmaking process as part of the discretionary post-threshold determination. In this case petitioner does not contend that any relevant mitigating evidence was excluded from his initial sentencing hearing, or that the trial court or jury was precluded as a matter of law from considering any information or arguments in mitigation. See Brief for Petitioner 18-19 (nonstatutory mitigating circumstances).

 The language of the statute is consistent with this tripartite analysis. The jury is instructed to “deliberate and render an advisory sentence to the court, based upon the following matters:
“(a) Whether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5);
*962“(b) Whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (6), which outweigh the aggravating circumstances found to exist; and
“(c) Based on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.” Fla. Stat. §921.141(2) (1977).
Similarly, the trial court must impose life unless he makes certain findings, though the statute does not require him to impose death if he does make these findings:
“(a) That sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5), and
“(b) That there are insufficient mitigating circumstances, as enumerated in subsection (6), to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.” Fla. Stat. §921.141(3) (1977).
With regard to the third stage, Florida case law appears to have evolved over time. An early case suggested that there was no discretion after the first two criteria had been satisfied. Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133, 1142 (Fla. 1976) (“Imposition of the death penalty is never pleasant. Here it cannot be avoided. The statute demands a decision from this Court, and we are bound to follow the law. In this case there were three aggravating and no mitigating circumstances. There is no alternative to the death penalty”). In general, however, the Florida Supreme Court appears to recognize that, though the first two findings establish a “presumption,” that presumption may be overcome. See, e. g., Williams v. State, supra, at 543 (jury’s recommendation of life militates against the presumption).

 In both Florida and Georgia, if the appellate court finds that no valid statutory aggravating circumstances are adequately supported by the record, the death sentence cannot stand because the legally mandated *963threshold has not been crossed. See, e. g., Arnold v. State, 236 Ga. 634, 539-542, 224 S. E. 2d 386, 390-392 (1976); Kampff v. State, 371 So. 2d 1007, 1009-1010 (Fla. 1979). This is the case, of course, if only nonstatu-tory aggravating circumstances have been found.

 If the trial judge applies the wrong standard in determining the presence or absence of mitigating circumstances, the Florida Supreme Court will vacate the death sentence. Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 631, 638 (Fla. 1982).

 These two categories appear at the appellate level in Florida Supreme Court decisions vacating death sentences. It is fair to assume that Florida trial courts, governed by the principles set forth by the State’s highest court, apply the same criteria on some occasions to justify imposition of life imprisonment. Such cases would not appear among the reported decisions because the State may not appeal a life sentence. State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1, 8 (1973).

 See Lewis v. State, 398 So. 2d, at 438-439 (only valid statutory aggravating circumstance was that the defendant was on parole from a prison sentence at the time of the murder; no statutory mitigating circumstances); Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d, at 643 (at most one valid statutory aggravating circumstance, hindering the enforcement of the laws; no statutory or nonstatutory mitigating circumstances); Provence v. State, 337 So. 2d. 783, 786-787 (Fla. 1976) (only one statutory aggravating factor, murder in the commission of a robbery; no reference to mitigating circumstances). The existence of this category of cases helps to fulfill one of the constitutionally required functions of a death penalty scheme — “reasonably justifying] the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder,” Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 877 (1983).

 As discussed in n. 2, supra, under the pre-1979 statute, consideration of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances at the third stage sufficed to satisfy the constitutional requirement set forth in Lockett and Eddings. This factor, as well as the weakness of the valid aggravating circumstance, apparently underlies the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. State, 398 So. 2d 432 (1981). Lewis’ trial took place before the 1979 amendment to the statute. The jury recommended life; the trial court, finding no stat*965utory mitigating circumstances, nevertheless imposed the death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating that “the jury is not limited, in its evaluation of the question of sentencing, to consideration of the statutory mitigating circumstances. It is allowed to draw on any considerations reasonably relevant to the question of mitigation of punishment.” Id., at 439.
In addition, in some cases decided under the pre-1979 statute, see n. 2, swpra, the Florida Supreme Court did not expressly conduct the stage (2) balancing literally required by the statute, but held that the “mitigating circumstances” — including nonstatutory factors — outweighed the aggravating circumstances. See Halliwell v. State, 323 So. 2d 557, 561 (1975) (defendant, inter alia, was a highly decorated Green Beret who had served in Vietnam); Buckrem v. State, 355 So. 2d 111, 113 (Fla. 1978) (defendant was “gainfully employed”).

 This rule appears to have been adopted after Barclay’s 1975 trial, and after our 1976 decision in Proffitt. In that case the trial court relied on three statutory aggravating circumstances and one nonstatutory aggravating factor — that petitioner “has the propensity to commit murder.” The Florida Supreme Court, without comment, approved all of these findings, and we upheld the death sentence. Proffitt v. State, 315 So. 2d 461, 466-467 (1975), aff’d, 428 U. S. 242, 246-247 (1976). See also Sawyer v. State, 313 So. 2d 680, 681-682 (Fla. 1975) (twice referred to in our Proffitt opinion, 428 U. S., at 250, n. 8, 256-257, n. 14). In Proffitt we assumed that the trial court was authorized to receive evidence on any matter that it deemed relevant to sentencing. Id., at 248.

 Purdy v. State, 343 So. 2d 4, 6 (1977) (“Under the provisions of Section 921.141, Florida Statutes, aggravating circumstances enumerated in the statute must be found to exist before a death sentence may be imposed. The specified statutory circumstances are exclusive; no others may be used for that purpose”).

 The court remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing trial “at which the factor of the Gaffney murder shall not be considered.” 346 So. 2d, at 1003.

 In Elledge, the trial court imposed the death penalty in reliance on a nonstatutory circumstance and several statutory aggravating circumstances. After holding that consideration of the nonstatutory factor was error, the Florida Supreme Court enunciated the touchstone for determining whether it was reversible error: the presence or absence of mitigating circumstances. As long as mitigating circumstances had been found, it was impossible to know whether the result of the statutorily required weighing process would have been different in the absence of the impermissible nonstatutory aggravating factor. See also Riley v. State, 366 So. 2d 19, 22 (Fla. 1979); Mikenas v. State, 367 So. 2d 606, 610 (Fla. 1978); Menendez v. State, 368 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 1979); Blair v. State, 406 So. 2d 1103, 1109 (Fla. 1981).
On the other hand, as the Elledge court also noted, if there were no statutory mitigating circumstances, and if the court had found at least one statutory aggravating circumstance along with a nonstatutory aggravating factor, “there is no danger that nonstatutory circumstances have served to overcome the mitigating circumstances in the weighing process which is dictated by our statute.” 346 So. 2d, at 1003. By definition, one or more statutory aggravating circumstances will always outweigh the complete absence of statutory mitigating circumstances. Furthermore, in another case, Brown v. State, 381 So. 2d 690 (1980), the Florida Supreme Court held that, because the trial court had stated that the one mitigating circumstance, appellant’s age, had “only ‘some minor significance,’” the death sentence could be sustained even though the court relied on two improper aggravating circumstances as well as two well-founded aggravating circumstances. Id., at 696. “This is-so because unlike Elledge, here ‘we can know’ that the result of the weighing process would not have been different had the impermissible factors not been present.” Ibid.

 Petitioner argues that the jury must have found nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, Brief for Petitioner 90, n. 29, because when it recommended life imprisonment, it stated that “sufficient mitigating circumstances do exist which outweigh any aggravating circumstances.” Id., at 88, quoting Sentencing Phase Tr. 180. But at the time of Barclay’s trial, nonstatutory mitigating circumstances did not play any role under Florida law in determining whether the legal threshold had been crossed. As we have explained above, this procedure was not constitutionally infirm. See n. 2, swpra. Nor does the possible existence of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances require that the death sentence automatically be set aside if one or more statutory aggravating circumstances are invalid under state law, or if nonstatutory aggravating factors have improperly been considered. As long as the Federal Constitution did not bar introduction of the *968evidence underlying those aggravating factors, it does not require that the death sentence be set aside. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S., at 888-889.

 See n. 12, supra; but see n. 7, supra (citing cases),

 Proffitt, we rejected a facial attack on this aggravating circumstance, see 428 U. S., at 255-256. As applied to the facts found by the trial court in this case, see ante, at 942-944, the application of this factor raises no constitutional problems. See State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d, at 9; cf. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980).

 Petitioner bases his challenges to these two aggravating circumstances in large part on Godfrey v. Georgia, supra. See Brief for Petitioner 45, 47, 57-58. We need not decide whether the principles of Godfrey have been violated by these two findings, because other statutory aggravating circumstances are valid. In contrast, in Godfrey, once the “broad and vague” aggravating circumstance was struck down, no valid statutory aggravating circumstances remained. See Godfrey, supra, at 426, 432-433, n. 15; Zant v. Stephens, supra, at 878.

 In Proffitt we expressly noted that the trial court “may order preparation of a presentence investigation report to assist him in determining the appropriate sentence. . . . These reports frequently contain much information relevant to sentencing.” 428 U. S., at 262, n. 9. Petitioner’s trial took place before this Court’s decision in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977), which held that due process requires that such materials be provided to defense counsel to permit explanation and rebuttal of potentially misleading or inaccurate information. The Florida Supreme Court sua sponte vacated the original sentence and remanded for a Gardner hearing regarding the accuracy of the undisclosed portions of the presentence investigation report. On remand the trial court found that petitioner’s responses did not affect the original sentence; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed; and the issue is not before us on certiorari.

 This is not because it assisted the trial court in “weighing the ‘especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel’ statutory aggravating circumstance,” ante, at 949, but because it pertained more generally to the trial judge’s exercise of his sentencing discretion — the third stage of the sentencing process.

 Brief for Petitioner 18.

 App. 17-18, 25, 33, 34-35, 107-108, 121-122.

 The Florida statute gives the trial court an independent duty to determine whether mitigating circumstances exist, and the Florida Supreme Court has approved the court’s reliance on information not available to the *972jury. White v. State, 403 So. 2d 331, 339-340 (1981); Swan v. State, 322 So. 2d 485, 488-489 (1975).

 See Brief for Petitioner 90-92, n. 29. Barclay was 23 years old, gainfully employed and the father of several children. App. 25, 30-31, 115, 119. He did not inflict the mortal wounds. Id., at 23, 112. Dougan, not Barclay, originated the idea and was the “leading force” in implementing it. Id., at 24,113. Three other codefendants, Hearn, Crittendon, and Evans, received prison sentences. Id., at 22-24, 113. Recognizing these facts, the trial court also found them to be negated or outweighed by other factors.' For example, even though Dougan rendered the “coup de grace,” the trial court found that “[t]he evidence shows that Barclay was the first to demonstrate homicidal intent by throwing the victim to the ground and repeatedly stabbing him with a knife.” Id., at 23; see id., at 112. And even though Dougan was the ringleader, the court found that both petitioner and Dougan were “the primary culprits” and “both were the major participants,” id., at 24-25; see id., at 113-114, and that Barclay was not under the substantial domination of Dougan or any other person. Id., at 26, 114-116.

 The Florida Supreme Court has overturned numerous death sentences imposed by trial courts despite a jury recommendation of life imprisonment. See Walsh v. State, 418 So. 2d 1000, 1003-1004 (1982) (listing 23 such cases). It has also upheld a substantial number of such sentences. Ibid. The disposition of each case depends on its particular circumstances.

 The Florida Supreme Court adopted a uniform procedure for hearings on remand in light of Gardner v. Florida. It explained this procedure in Dougan v. State, 398 So. 2d 439, 440 (1981): “Our directive was quite clear that this Court would review a reimposition of the death penalty ‘limited to matters related to the compliance with this order.’ . . . Our vacation of Dougan’s death sentence for Gardner relief was technically-based, serving the sole purpose of allowing Dougan’s counsel to demonstrate that matters contained in the pre-sentence investigation report were improper and prejudicial.”