CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: RACE, POVERTY & DISADVANTAGE Yale University Professor Stephen B. Bright Class Three - Part Two AGGRAVATING imprisonment for life, the sentence to be fixed by the jury trying the case.” He explained that the CIRCUMSTANCES jury was authorized to consider all of the evidence received during the trial as well as all facts and Walter ZANT, Warden circumstances presented in extenuation, v. mitigation, or aggravation during the sentencing Alpha Otis O’Daniel STEPHENS proceeding. He then stated: United States Supreme Court You may consider any of the following statutory 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733 (1983). aggravating circumstances which you find are supported by the evidence. One, the offense of Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murder was committed by a person with a prior White, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and record of conviction for a Capital felony, or the concurring in the judgment. Rehnquist, J., filed an offense of Murder was committed by a person opinion concurring in the judgment. Marshall, J., who has a substantial history of serious filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., assaultive criminal convictions. Two, the joined. offense of Murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the involved torture, depravity of mind or an Court. aggravated battery to the victim. Three, the offense of Murder was committed by a person The question presented is whether respondent’s who has escaped from the lawful custody of a death penalty must be vacated because one of the peace officer or place of lawful confinement. three statutory aggravating circumstances found These possible statutory circumstances are by the jury was subsequently held to be invalid by stated in writing and will be out with you during the Supreme Court of Georgia, although the other your deliberations on the sentencing phase of two aggravating circumstances were specifically this case. They are in writing here, and I shall upheld. The answer depends on the function of send this out with you. If the jury verdict on the jury’s finding of an aggravating circumstance sentencing fixes punishment at death by under Georgia’s capital sentencing statute, and on electrocution you shall designate in writing, the reasons that the aggravating circumstance at signed by the foreman, the aggravating issue in this particular case was found to be circumstances or circumstance which you found invalid. to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless one or more of these statutory * * * aggravating circumstances are proved beyond a reasonable doubt you will not be authorized to The trial judge instructed the jury that under the fix punishment at death. law of Georgia “every person found guilty of Murder shall be punished by death or by The jury followed the Court’s instruction and Class 3 - Part 2 Aggravating Circumstances 1 Prof. Bright - Capital Punishment imposed the death penalty. It designated in All cases of homicide of every category are writing that it had found the aggravating contained within the pyramid. The circumstances described as “One” and “Three” in consequences flowing to the perpetrator the judge’s instruction. It made no such finding increase in severity as the cases proceed from with respect to “Two”. * * * the base of the apex, with the death penalty applying only to those few cases which are While [Stephens’] appeal was pending, the contained in the space just beneath the apex. Georgia Supreme Court held * * * that the To reach that category a case must pass aggravating circumstance described in the second through three planes of division between the clause of (b)(1) – “a substantial history of serious base and the apex. assaultive criminal convictions” – was unconstitutionally vague. Because such a finding The first plane of division above the base had been made by the jury in this case, the separates from all homicide cases those which Georgia Supreme Court, on its own motion, fall into the category of murder. This plane is considered whether it impaired respondent’s death established by the legislature in statutes sentence. It concluded that the two other defining terms such as murder, voluntary aggravating circumstances adequately supported manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and the sentence. justifiable homicide. In deciding whether a given case falls above or below this plane, the After the Federal District Court had denied a function of the trier of facts is limited to petition for habeas corpus, the United States Court finding facts. The plane remains fixed unless of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [. .] held that the moved by legislative act. death penalty was invalid because one of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury was The second plane separates from all murder later held unconstitutional. cases those in which the penalty of death is a possible punishment. This plane is established * * * by statutory definitions of aggravating circumstances. The function of the factfinder We granted Warden Zant’s petition for is again limited to making a determination of certiorari. whether certain facts have been established. Except where there is treason or aircraft * * * Although the Georgia Supreme Court had hijacking, a given case may not move above consistently stated that the failure of one this second plane unless at least one statutory aggravating circumstance does not invalidate a aggravating circumstance exists. death sentence that is otherwise adequately supported, we concluded that an exposition of the The third plane separates, from all cases in state-law premises for that view would assist in which a penalty of death may be imposed, framing the precise federal constitutional issues those cases in which it shall be imposed. presented by the Court of Appeals’ holding. We There is an absolute discretion in the factfinder therefore sought guidance from the Georgia to place any given case below the plane and Supreme Court pursuant to Georgia’s statutory not impose death. The plane itself is certification procedure. * * * established by the factfinder. In establishing the plane, the factfinder considers all evidence * * * The [Georgia Supreme] Court then in extenuation, mitigation and aggravation of explained the state-law premises for its treatment punishment. * * * There is a final limitation of aggravating circumstances by analogizing the on the imposition of the death penalty resting entire body of Georgia law governing homicides in the automatic appeal procedure: This court to a pyramid. It explained: determines whether the penalty of death was imposed under the influence of passion, Class 3 - Part 2 Aggravating Circumstances 2 Prof. Bright - Capital Punishment prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; pursuant to any special standard. Thus, in whether the statutory aggravating Georgia, the finding of an aggravating circumstances are supported by the evidence; circumstance does not play any role in guiding the and whether the sentence of death is excessive sentencing body in the exercise of its discretion, or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in apart from its function of narrowing the class of similar cases. * * * Performance of this persons convicted of murder who are eligible for function may cause this court to remove a case the death penalty. For this reason, respondent from the death penalty category but can never argues that Georgia’s statutory scheme is invalid have the opposite result. under the holding in Furman v. Georgia. The purpose of the statutory aggravating * * * circumstances is to limit to a large degree, but not completely, the factfinder’s discretion. [Stephens] argues that the mandate of Furman Unless at least one of the ten statutory is violated by a scheme that permits the jury to aggravating circumstances exists, the death exercise unbridled discretion in determining penalty may not be imposed in any event. If whether the death penalty should be imposed after there exists at least one statutory aggravating it has found that the defendant is a member of the circumstance, the death penalty may be class made eligible for that penalty by statute. But imposed but the factfinder has a discretion to that argument could not be accepted without decline to do so without giving any reason. * overruling our specific holding in Gregg. For the * * In making the decision as to the penalty, Court approved Georgia’s capital sentencing the factfinder takes into consideration all statute even though it clearly did not channel the circumstances before it from both the jury’s discretion by enunciating specific standards guilt-innocence and the sentence phases of the to guide the jury’s consideration of aggravating trial. These circumstances relate both to the and mitigating circumstances. offense and the defendant. * * * A case may not pass the second plane into that area in which the death penalty is Our cases indicate, then, that statutory authorized unless at least one statutory aggravating circumstances play a constitutionally aggravating circumstance is found. However, necessary function at the stage of legislative this plane is passed regardless of the number of definition: they circumscribe the class of persons statutory aggravating circumstances found, so eligible for the death penalty. But the long as there is at least one. Once beyond this Constitution does not require the jury to ignore plane, the case enters the area of the other possible aggravating factors in the process factfinder’s discretion, in which all the facts of selecting, from among that class, those and circumstances of the case determine in defendants who will actually be sentenced to terms of our metaphor, whether or not the case death. passes the third plane and into the area in which the death penalty is imposed. The Georgia scheme provides for categorical narrowing at the definition stage, and for * * * individualized determination and appellate review at the selection stage. We therefore remain In Georgia, unlike some other States, the jury convinced, as we were in 1976, that the structure is not instructed to give any special weight to any of the statute is constitutional.