BThomas_CRJ552_MOD7 (Smith v. Texas)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kaplan University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
LS509
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by brittaneyt14
CRJ 552
Criminal Advocacy & Judicial Procedure
Jury Instructions and Sentencing
TITLE AND CITATION
:
Smith v. Texas, 125 S. Ct. 400 (2004)
TYPE OF ACTION
: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a lower court ruling the Defendant,
convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death sentence, petitioned for writ of habeas
corpus.
FACTS OF THE CASE
:
In 1991, petitioner was convicted of brutally murdering one of his former co-workers at a Taco Bell
in Dallas County. The victim and one of her co-workers were closing down the restaurant when
petitioner and several friends asked to be let in to use the telephone. The two employees
recognized petitioner and let him in. Petitioner then told his former co-workers to leave because
he wanted to rob the restaurant. When they did not leave, petitioner killed one co-worker by
pistol-whipping her and shooting her in the back. Petitioner also threatened, but did not harm, his
other former co-worker before exiting with his friends. The jury found petitioner guilty of capital
murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Petitioner presented evidence that (1) he had been diagnosed with potentially organic learning
disabilities and speech handicaps at an early age; (2) he had a verbal IQ score of 75 and a full IQ
of 78 and, as a result, had been in special education classes throughout most of his time in
school; (3) despite his low IQ and learning disabilities, his behavior at school was often
exemplary; (4) his father was a drug addict who was involved with gang violence and other
criminal activities, and regularly stole money from family members to support a drug addiction;
and (5) he was only 19 when he committed the crime.
In response, the prosecution submitted evidence demonstrating that petitioner acted deliberately
and cruelly. The prosecution emphasized that petitioner knew his victim, yet stabbed her
repeatedly in numerous places on her body. With respect to petitioner's future dangerousness,
the prosecution stressed that petitioner had previously been convicted of misdemeanor assault
and proffered evidence suggesting that he had violated several drug laws.
ISSUE:
Was the Eighth Amendment violated by jury instructions that told jurors to give effect to
mitigating evidence only by voting "no" on what would otherwise be affirmative responses to two
special issues relating to deliberateness and future dangerousness?
DECISION:
We therefore hold that the nullification instruction was constitutionally inadequate
under Penry II. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REASONING:
There is no principled distinction, for Eighth Amendment purposes, between the
instruction given to petitioner's jury and the instruction in Penry II. Petitioner's evidence was
relevant mitigation evidence for the jury under Tennard and Penry I.
RULE OF LAW:
To the contrary, the mandatory language in the charge could possibly have
intensified the dilemma faced by ethical jurors. Just as in Penry II, petitioner's jury was required
by law to answer a verdict form that made no mention whatsoever of mitigation evidence. And just
as in Penry II, the burden of proof on the State was tied by law to findings of deliberateness and
future dangerousness that had little, if anything, to do with the mitigation evidence petitioner
presented. Even if we were to assume that the jurors could easily and effectively have
comprehended an orally delivered instruction directing them to disregard, in certain limited
circumstances, a mandatory written instruction given at a later occasion, that would not change
the fact that the “jury was essentially instructed to return a false answer to a special issue in order
to avoid a death sentence.”
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help