Arave v. Creech
123 L. Ed. 2d 188, 113 S. Ct. 1534 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory aggravating circumstance in a capital sentencing scheme is not unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments if the state's highest court has adopted a limiting construction that provides a principled basis for distinguishing defendants eligible for the death penalty. A construction defining 'utter disregard for human life' as the state of mind of a 'cold-blooded, pitiless slayer,' interpreted to mean one who kills without feeling or sympathy, sufficiently narrows the class of eligible defendants.
Facts:
- Thomas Eugene Creech was an inmate at the Idaho State Penitentiary, already serving life sentences for other murders.
- David Dale Jensen, a fellow inmate who was physically handicapped with part of his brain removed, attacked Creech with a sock containing batteries.
- Creech disarmed Jensen, who then armed himself with a toothbrush handle to which a razor blade was taped.
- When Jensen approached Creech again, Creech struck him with the battery-filled sock, knocking him to the floor.
- The plate in Jensen's skull shattered during the ensuing fight.
- After the sock broke and Jensen was rendered helpless, Creech kicked him repeatedly in the head and throat.
- Jensen died later the same day from his injuries.
- Creech provided conflicting accounts, one claiming self-defense and another suggesting he orchestrated the fight as a pretext to carry out a paid killing.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Creech pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in an Idaho state trial court.
- The trial judge conducted a sentencing hearing, found five aggravating circumstances including 'utter disregard for human life,' and sentenced Creech to death.
- Creech appealed his sentence to the Idaho Supreme Court, which affirmed the death sentence.
- Creech filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, which was denied.
- Creech, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court's denial of habeas corpus, holding that the 'utter disregard' aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague.
- Arave, the warden and appellee in the circuit court, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Idaho's 'utter disregard for human life' statutory aggravating circumstance, as construed by the Idaho Supreme Court to mean 'the cold-blooded, pitiless slayer,' violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by being unconstitutionally vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. Idaho's 'utter disregard for human life' aggravating circumstance, as construed by the Idaho Supreme Court, does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the limiting construction provides a clear and objective standard that genuinely narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. The Idaho Supreme Court's construction of the phrase to mean 'the cold-blooded, pitiless slayer' refers to a killer who acts without feeling or sympathy. This describes the defendant's state of mind and attitude toward the victim, which is a factual determination that can be inferred from the circumstances of the crime, not a vague subjective inquiry. By distinguishing between murderers who kill with emotion (e.g., anger, jealousy) and those who kill without any feeling, this construction provides a principled basis for identifying a subclass of defendants more deserving of capital punishment, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement to narrow sentencing discretion.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. Idaho's 'utter disregard' aggravating circumstance, even with its limiting construction, is unconstitutionally vague because the metaphor 'cold-blooded, pitiless slayer' fails to provide meaningful guidance to the sentencer. The majority invents its own definition of 'cold-blooded' as 'without feeling or sympathy,' a definition not supported by common usage, legal precedent, or Idaho case law. In ordinary language, 'cold-blooded' is used to describe a wide variety of murders, including those committed with intense emotion. In legal terms, it often means 'premeditated,' which would unconstitutionally apply to all first-degree murders. The Idaho courts' inconsistent application of the factor, including in this case where the trial judge found Creech acted in an 'excessive violent rage,' demonstrates that the construction is a standardless catchall that fails to genuinely narrow the class of death-eligible defendants.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that aggravating factors based on a defendant's subjective state of mind can pass constitutional muster if narrowed by a state court's construction. It gives states considerable deference in crafting and interpreting such factors, reinforcing the framework from Walton v. Arizona. The Court's approval of the 'cold-blooded, pitiless slayer' standard, and its own interpretation of that standard, demonstrates a willingness to find clarity in terms that might otherwise seem subjective. This ruling makes facial challenges to similar aggravating circumstances more difficult, shifting the legal battleground more toward as-applied challenges focused on whether the facts of a specific case support the finding.
Unlock the full brief for Arave v. Creech