Court Opinion

ID: 9429278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:18.161843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:01.289547
License: Public Domain

Justice Rehnquist,
concurring in the judgment.
While agreeing with the Court’s judgment, I write separately to make clear my understanding of the application of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the capital sentencing procedures used in this case. I agree with the Court’s treatment of the factual and procedural background of the case, and with its characterization of the questions presented for review. In brief, we must decide whether the procedure by which Georgia imposes the death sentence comports with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; whether, in this case, imposition of the death sentence violates the rule of Stromberg v. California, 288 U. S. 359 (1931); and whether the erroneous presentation to a jury of an invalid aggravating circumstance requires vacating the death sentence imposed by that jury.
HH
The Georgia death sentencing procedure is comprehensively detailed in the statutes of the State, decisions of the Georgia courts, the opinion issued by the Georgia Supreme Court in response to the question certified by this Court, Zant v. Stephens, 456 U. S. 410 (1982), and the jury instructions in this case. As these materials reveal, two separate proceedings are necessary to imposition of the death sentence in Georgia. The first stage is simply a traditional criminal trial on the question of guilt or innocence. If the defendant is found guilty of a capital offense, a separate sentencing proceeding is then conducted.
At this second proceeding, the State and the defendant are permitted to introduce a wide range of evidence in “extenuation, mitigation, and aggravation of punishment.” Ga. Code *894§27-2503 (1978). The sentencing body is then directed to make two separate decisions. First, it decides whether any of a number of specific, statutorily defined aggravating circumstances have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ga. Code §27-2534.1(b) (1978). In addition, the jury is instructed that, if it finds one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances, it is to make the further judgment whether the defendant deserves the death sentence. In making this second decision, statutory aggravating circumstances found by the sentencer are considered together with all the other evidence in mitigation and aggravation. The sentencer is not, however, instructed to formally “weigh” the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances. If a death sentence is imposed, then the case receives both conventional appellate consideration and expedited direct review by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Respondent challenges the Georgia death sentencing system as violative of the Eighth Amendment, on the grounds that it fails adequately to channel the discretion of the sentencing body. In particular, respondent urges that the absence of an instruction that the sentencer must balance statutory aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances before imposing the death sentence renders the scheme unconstitutional under the reasoning in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). Respondent’s claim is, in my opinion, completely foreclosed by this Court’s precedents.
Except in minor detail, Georgia’s current system is identical to the sentencing procedure we held constitutional in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); id., at 207 (White, J., concurring in judgment). The joint opinion in Gregg fully recognized that the Georgia scheme did not direct the sentencing body that statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances were to be weighed against each other in any formal sense. This is evident from its careful description of the Georgia scheme, id., at 196-197, and its treatment of the *895Model Penal Code’s proposed system, id., at 193, where the fact that the sentencing body is formally instructed to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances was specifically noted. Notwithstanding the lack of an explicit “balancing” directive, the joint opinion upheld the statutory scheme, since, taken as a whole, it provided the sentencing authority with sufficient guidance to prevent the “freakish” imposition of death barred in Furman. Likewise, in Justice White’s concurrence, 428 U. S., at 211, the role of aggravating circumstances was squarely discussed, and approved. To accept respondent’s contention that the sentencing body must be specifically instructed to balance statutory aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances would require rejecting the judgment in Gregg that the Georgia statute provided the sentencing body with adequate guidance to permit it to impose death.1
II
Respondent next contends that Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931), requires that his death sentence be set aside. Respondent’s argument rests on the fact that one of the three aggravating circumstances specified by the jury in *896his case was later found invalid under a state-court decision holding the statutory definition of the circumstance im-permissibly vague under the United States Constitution. Arnold v. State, 236 Ga. 534, 224 S. E. 2d 386 (1976).2 Respondent reasons that Stromberg establishes a rule requiring that any general verdict returned by a factfinder be set aside if it is based, even in part, upon “an invalid factor.” Supplemental Brief for Respondent 8. According to respondent, because one of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury was invalid, the general verdict of death returned by the jury fails the Stromberg test.
Careful examination of Stromberg, cases following that decision, and the role of aggravating circumstances in a jury’s imposition of the death penalty compels rejection of respondent’s claim. Stromberg presented a straightforward case. The defendant was convicted for violating a California statute prohibiting the display of a red flag for any of three separate purposes. At trial the jury was instructed that the defendant should be convicted if he acted with any one of the proscribed purposes; it returned a general verdict of guilty without indicating which purpose it believed motivated the defendant. This Court concluded that the first of the clauses of the statute detailing impermissible purposes was unconstitutional, and held that it was unnecessary to decide the validity of the remaining two clauses. The Court observed that the prosecutor had “emphatically urged upon the jury that they could convict the appellant under the first clause alone, without regard to the other clauses.” 283 U. S., at 368. It concluded that it was “impossible to say under which clause of the statute the conviction was obtained,” ibid., and that, given this complete uncertainty, the conviction could not stand. See also Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. *897287, 292 (1942); Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1, 36, n. 45 (1945); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1949); Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 311-312 (1957). Of course, if the jury does indicate which statutory elements supported its verdict, and if these are valid, then Stromberg is inapplicable.
As the Court points out, the Stromberg doctrine subsequently was extended — albeit without lengthy analysis. In Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 586-590 (1969), the Court vacated a conviction, based on a single-count indictment, for casting contempt on the United States flag. The statute under which petitioner was convicted criminalized casting contempt upon the flag by “words or act.” Id., at 578. The information filed against petitioner alleged that he violated this statute because he both burned the flag and shouted derogatory statements about it. Likewise, the State introduced evidence at the bench trial of both the petitioner’s act and his speech. The Court concluded that petitioner’s constitutional rights would have been violated had he been punished for his speech. It thought, moreover, that the trial judge might have rested his finding solely on petitioner’s speech, which presented a situation similar to that in Stromberg.
In addition, however, the Court believed that, on the record of the case, there was an “unacceptable danger that the trier of fact . . . regarded the two acts as ‘intertwined’ and . . . rested the conviction on both together.” 394 U. S., at 588. In short, when an element of a crime is defined to include constitutionally protected actions, and when the State alleges, argues, and offers proof that the defendant’s protected conduct satisfied the element, then a general verdict of guilty must be set aside, even if the State also alleged and proved another course of conduct that could have satisfied the element. As in Stromberg, however, the Court also noted that when the record indicates that the jury’s verdict did not rest on an “intertwined” combination of protected and *898unprotected conduct, but instead rested sufficiently on unprotected conduct, then the verdict would stand.
Neither the Stromberg line of cases nor Street provides respondent with appreciable support. I agree with the Court that the Stromberg rule is plainly distinguishable, since the jury explicitly returned two concededly valid aggravating circumstances, thereby conclusively negating the inference that it rested solely on the invalid circumstance. Likewise, I conclude that the analysis in Street is inapposite.3 It is helpful in explaining why this is the case to discuss separately the two decisions made by the sentencing body during the Georgia death penalty proceedings. I initially consider the applicability of Street to the jury’s first decision, that is, the finding of statutory aggravating circumstances.
As indicated above, Street explicitly stated that its rule regarding the treatment of aggravating circumstances is inapplicable “when the indictment or information is in several counts and the conviction is explicitly declared to rest on findings of guilt on certain of those counts, for in such instances there is positive evidence that the trier of fact considered each count on its own merits and separately from the others.” 394 U. S., at 588 (footnote omitted). This exception to the Street rule extends to the jury’s determination in this case that certain specified aggravating circumstances existed. The jury received separate instructions as to each of several aggravating circumstances, and returned a verdict form separately listing three circumstances. The fact that one of these subsequently proved to be invalid does not affect the validity of the remaining two jury findings, just as the reversal on appeal of one of several convictions returned to sepa*899rate counts does not affect the remaining convictions. There was “positive evidence” that Stephens’ jury considered each aggravating circumstance “on its own merits and separately from the others.” Ibid. Because of this, Street provides no basis for questioning the jury’s first decision, which, if supported, permitted it to go further and consider whether Stephens deserved the death sentence.
Street's logic is even less applicable to a Georgia death jury’s second decision, namely, that the defendant deserved the death sentence. Under respondent’s theory, the jury’s verdict of death was based in part on an aggravating circumstance that later proved invalid, and which, according to respondent must thus fall under the rule of Street. Whatever its proper application elsewhere, Street’s, rule cannot fairly be extended to the sentencing context. As discussed below, the significant differences between the role of aggravating circumstances in the jury’s decision to impose the death sentence and the role played by instructions or allegations in a jury’s determination of guilt preclude applying Street to the sentencing context.
The rule relied upon by respondent was developed in a situation where a factfinder returns a verdict of guilty on a specific criminal charge. In returning this verdict, the jury decides whether the defendant committed a specific set of defined acts with a particular mental state. These elements, each of which is necessary to the verdict of guilty, are specifically and carefully enumerated and defined in the indictment or information and the instructions to the jury. Only evidence relevant to the particular elements alleged by the State is admissible, and, even then, subject to exclusion of prejudicial evidence which might distract the jury from the specific factfinding task it performs. Based on this evidence the jury decides whether each of the elements constituting the offense was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court’s observation in Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 246-247 (1949), accurately captures the character of the pro*900cedure leading to a criminal conviction: “In a trial before verdict the issue is whether a defendant is guilty of having engaged in certain criminal conduct of which he has been specifically accused. Rules of evidence have been fashioned for criminal trials . . . narrowly confining] the trial contest . . .
The decision by a Georgia death jury at the final stage of its deliberations to impose death is a significantly different decision from the model just described. A wide range of evidence is admissible on literally countless subjects: “We have long recognized that ‘[f]or the determination of sentences, justice generally requires . . . that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.” Gregg, 428 U. S., at 189 (emphasis added). In considering this evidence, the jury does not attempt to decide whether particular elements have been proved, but instead makes a unique, individualized judgment regarding the punishment that a particular person deserves. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 602-605 (1978).
The role of aggravating circumstances in making this judgment is substantially more limited than the role played by jury instructions or allegations in an indictment in an ordinary trial. In Georgia, aggravating circumstances serve principally to restrict the class of defendants subject to the death sentence; once a single aggravating!circumstance is specified, the jury then considers all the evidence in aggravation-mitigation in deciding whether to impose the death penalty, see Part I, supra. An aggravating circumstance in this latter stage is simply one of the countless considerations weighed by the jury in seeking to judge the punishment appropriate to the individual defendant.
If an aggravating circumstance is revealed to be invalid, the probable effect of this fact alone on the jury’s second decision — whether the death sentence is appropriate — is minimal. If one of the few theories of guilt presented to the jury *901in the trial judge’s instructions, or the indictment, proves invalid, there is a substantial risk that the jury may have based its verdict on an improper theory. This follows from the necessarily limited number of theories presented to the jury, and from the fact that the jury’s decisionmaking is carefully routed along paths specifically set out in the instructions. When an aggravating circumstance proves invalid, however, the effect ordinarily is only to diminish the probative value of one of literally countless factors that the jury considered. The inference that this diminution would alter the result reached by the jury is all but nonexistent. Given this, the rule developed in Street simply cannot be applied sensibly to sentencing decisions resulting from proceedings involving aggravating circumstances. Instead, as developed in the following Part, a different analysis has been applied to the question whether to set aside sentencing decisions based in part upon invalid factors.
hH HH
Respondent contends next that, even if Street is inapplicable, the erroneous submission to the jury of an instruction which we are bound to regard as unconstitutionally vague, see n. 3, supra, must have had sufficient effect on the jury’s deliberations to require vacating its verdict. Although our prior decisions are not completely consistent regarding the effect of constitutional error in sentencing proceedings on the sentence imposed on the defendant, in general sentencing decisions are accorded far greater finality than convictions.
Ordinarily, a sentence within statutory limits is beyond appellate review. Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386, 393 (1958). In Street, 394 U. S., at 588, n. 9, we cited with approval to several of a long line of sentencing decisions. In Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140 (1891); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640 (1946); and Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109 (1959), defendants were convicted on several separate counts and received “general sentences,” *902not linked to any one or combination of the counts. The defendants then challenged all their convictions on writ of error or appeal. The Court, following a well-settled rule, stated in Barenblatt: “Since this sentence was less than the maximum punishment authorized by the statute for conviction under any one Count, the judgment below must be upheld if the conviction upon any of the Counts is sustainable.” Id., at 115 (footnote omitted). In Claassen we said: “[I]t is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cannot be reversed on error, if any one of the counts is good and warrants the judgment, because, in the absence of anything in the record to show the contrary, the presumption of law is that the court awarded sentence on the good count only.” 142 U. S., at 146-147.
The practical basis for the rules articulated in Gore and the Claassen line of cases is clear. As indicated above, sentencing decisions rest on a far-reaching inquiry into countless facts and circumstances and not on the type of proof of particular elements that returning a conviction does. The fact that one of the countless considerations that the sentencer would have taken into account was erroneous, misleading, or otherwise improperly before him, ordinarily can be assumed not to have been a necessary basis for his decision. Nonetheless, in limited cases, noncapital sentencing decisions are vacated for resentencing.
In United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443 (1972), two uncounseled — and therefore unconstitutionally obtained— convictions were introduced against the defendant in the sentencing proceeding. The Court observed that the sentencing judge gave “explicit” and “specific” attention, id., at 444, 447, to these convictions. Moreover, it noted that the defendant would have “appeared in a dramatically different light” had the true character of the unconstitutional convictions been known: the judge would have been dealing with a *903man unconstitutionally imprisoned, beginning at age 17, for more than 10 years, including 554 years on a chain gang. Id., at 448. Finally, the Court reemphasized the unconstitutional character of the respondent’s prior convictions, and opined that to permit his sentence to stand would “erode” the rule in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963). Given all this, respondent’s sentence was held improper, and the case was remanded for resentencing.
Similarly, in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736 (1948), an uncounseled defendant was sentenced following a proceeding in which the trial judge explicitly and repeatedly relied upon the incorrect assumption that the defendant had been convicted of several crimes. The Court observed that “[i]t is not the duration or severity of this sentence that renders it constitutionally invalid; it is the careless or designed pronouncement of sentence on a foundation so extensively and materially false, which the prisoner had no opportunity to correct by the services which counsel would provide, that renders the proceedings lacking in due process.” Id., at 741.
The approach taken in Tucker, Townsend, and> the Claassen line of cases begins with the presumption that, since the sentencer’s judgment rested on countless variables, an error made in one portion of the sentencing proceeding ordinarily should not affect the sentence. This presumption is most plainly revealed by the Claassen line of cases, where a sentence will stand even if it turns out that the crimes for which the defendant was sentenced had not all been committed. Nonetheless, the defendant may adduce evidence that the sentencing body likely would have acted differently had the error not occurred. In order to prevail on such a claim, however, we have required a convincing showing that the introduction of specific constitutionally infirm evidence had an ascertainable and “dramatic” impact on the sentencing authority. See United States v. Tucker, supra; Townsend v. Burke, supra. Of course, a more careful application of this standard is appropriate in capital cases.
*904In the present case, however, the erroneous submission to the jury of an invalid aggravating circumstance simply cannot satisfy whatever standard may plausibly be based on the cases discussed above. As the Court points out, the only real impact resulting from the error was that evidence properly before the jury was capable of being fit within a category that the judge’s instructions labeled “aggravating. ” The evidence in question — respondent’s prior convictions — plainly was an aggravating factor, which, as we held in Gregg, the jury was free to consider. The fact that the instruction gave added weight to this no doubt played some role in the deliberations of some jurors. Yet, the Georgia Supreme Court was plainly right in saying that the “mere fact that some of the aggravating circumstances presented were improperly designated ‘statutory’” had “an inconsequential impact on the jury’s decision regarding the death penalty.” 250 Ga. 97, 100, 297 S. E. 2d 1, 4 (1982). The plurality recognized in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S., at 605, that there can be “no perfect procedure for deciding in which cases governmental authority should be used to impose death.” Whatever a defendant must show to set aside a death sentence, the present case involved only a remote possibility that the error had any effect on the jury’s judgment; the Eighth Amendment did not therefore require that the defendant’s sentence be vacated.

 In Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976), we approved a death penalty-statute providing even less explicitly for the type of “weighing” that respondent claims is necessary. In Texas, persons convicted of five types of homicide faced a second proceeding in which the jury was required to answer three questions — whether the defendant’s acts were committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that they would result in death; whether there was a probability that the defendant would commit violent acts constituting a continuing threat to society; and whether the defendant’s acts were in response to some sort of provocation. As the joint opinion recognized, the sole function of the “aggravating circumstances” in the Texas system was to “narro[w] the categories of murders for which a death sentence may ever be imposed,” id., at 270. Since these “aggravating circumstances” were only considered at the guilt determination phase of trial, not at sentencing, the system could not contain a requirement that the jury “balance” these circumstances against mitigating circumstances— as respondent contends is constitutionally required in this case.

 I assume, for purposes of this decision, that Arnold was correctly decided and that it was properly applied to respondent’s case. I express no view as to the correctness of that decision or its application.

 As the Court points out, Street properly has been confined to situations where there is a substantial risk that the jury has imposed criminal punishment because of activity protected by the Constitution. Respondent’s history of violent conduct, on which the invalid aggravating circumstance was based, plainly falls outside this category, and Street therefore is inapplicable to this case.