Booth v. Maryland
482 U.S. 496 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The introduction of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because it introduces information irrelevant to the defendant's blameworthiness and creates an unacceptable risk of an arbitrary and capricious sentence.
Facts:
- In 1983, Irvin Bronstein, 78, and his wife Rose, 75, lived in West Baltimore.
- John Booth, a neighbor of the Bronsteins, and his accomplice Willie Reid entered the Bronsteins' home to steal money for heroin.
- Knowing the couple could identify him, Booth and Reid bound, gagged, and repeatedly stabbed the Bronsteins to death with a kitchen knife.
- The Bronsteins' son discovered their bodies two days after the murders.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in a Maryland trial court convicted John Booth of two counts of first-degree murder and related offenses.
- During the sentencing phase, the State of Maryland introduced a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) prepared by the Division of Parole and Probation, as required by state law.
- Booth's counsel moved to suppress the VIS, arguing its use in a capital case violated the Eighth Amendment; the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury sentenced Booth to death for one of the murders and to life imprisonment for the other.
- On automatic appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction and the sentences, holding that the VIS did not inject an arbitrary factor into the sentencing.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the constitutional question.
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 the introduction of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial violate the Eighth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, the introduction of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial violates the Eighth Amendment. A capital sentencing decision must be an individualized determination based on the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime, focusing on the defendant's personal responsibility and moral guilt. The information in a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) — concerning the victim's personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the crime on the family — is irrelevant to the defendant's culpability, as the defendant is often unaware of these factors. Allowing a jury to consider such information creates an unacceptable risk that the death penalty will be imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner, based on factors like the victim's perceived worth or the family's ability to articulate its grief, rather than on reason. Furthermore, presenting the family's opinions and characterizations of the crime serves only to inflame the jury, which is inconsistent with the reasoned decision-making required in capital cases.
Dissenting - Justice White
No, the introduction of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial does not violate the Eighth Amendment. The harm a murderer causes to the victim's family and community is a relevant consideration in assessing the gravity of the offense and the appropriate level of punishment. State legislatures are entitled to deference in making policy judgments about relevant sentencing factors. This evidence serves a legitimate purpose by counteracting the defendant's mitigating evidence and reminding the jury that the victim was an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society. Concerns about arbitrariness are speculative and do not justify a per se constitutional ban on such evidence.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, the introduction of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial does not violate the Eighth Amendment. The amount of harm a defendant causes is directly relevant to their personal responsibility, which is a key component of punishment, even if their moral guilt remains the same. The Court's own precedents allow death penalty eligibility to turn on the outcome of a crime (e.g., whether the victim lives or dies), which is a factor beyond the defendant's moral guilt. To permit all mitigating evidence for the defendant while suppressing evidence of the human suffering they inflicted creates a one-sided debate. The decision to include victim impact evidence is a matter for the democratic process, not a constitutional mandate.
Analysis:
This decision established a bright-line rule that victim impact statements are per se inadmissible in capital sentencing proceedings under the Eighth Amendment. The Court's reasoning emphasized that sentencing must focus exclusively on the defendant's character, record, and the circumstances of the offense to avoid arbitrary outcomes. However, the legal significance of Booth was short-lived, as the Supreme Court explicitly overruled it four years later in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991). The case now primarily serves as an important historical marker for a view of the Eighth Amendment that has since been rejected, and it remains a key case for understanding the evolution of capital sentencing jurisprudence.
Unlock the full brief for Booth v. Maryland