Boyde v. California
494 U.S. 370 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The constitutional standard for reviewing an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied it in a way that prevents consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. A capital sentencing instruction that mandates a death sentence if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating ones does not violate the Eighth Amendment, provided the jury can consider all relevant mitigating evidence.
Facts:
- On January 15, 1981, Richard Boyde entered a 7-Eleven store and robbed the night clerk, Dickie Gibson, of $33 at gunpoint.
- Boyde and his nephew then forced Gibson into a car and drove to a remote orange grove.
- At the grove, Boyde ordered Gibson to kneel with his hands behind his head.
- As Gibson begged for his life, Boyde shot him once in the back of the head and again in the forehead, killing him.
- During the penalty phase of his trial, Boyde presented extensive mitigating evidence related to his impoverished background, character, and scholastic difficulties.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in a California trial court found Richard Boyde guilty of robbery, kidnaping, and murder.
- At the conclusion of the penalty phase, where the jury was given CALJIC 8.84.1 (factor 'k') and 8.84.2 ('shall impose'), the jury returned a verdict of death.
- The trial court denied Boyde's motion to reduce the sentence.
- Boyde (appellant) appealed his death sentence to the Supreme Court of California, arguing the jury instructions were unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the sentence, holding that the instructions did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do California jury instructions that (1) mandate a death sentence if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating ones and (2) contain a 'catch-all' mitigating factor limited to circumstances that 'extenuate the gravity of the crime' violate the Eighth Amendment by preventing an individualized assessment of the appropriateness of the death penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The California jury instructions at issue do not violate the Eighth Amendment. The instruction mandating the death penalty if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating ones is constitutional because the requirement of individualized sentencing is satisfied by allowing the jury to consider all relevant mitigating evidence. Regarding the ambiguous 'catch-all' instruction, the proper standard of review is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. Applying this standard, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from considering Boyde's background and character evidence, as such evidence is relevant to whether the defendant is less culpable and whether the crime's seriousness is 'extenuated' or 'excused' in a moral sense.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The challenged jury instructions are constitutionally inadequate. The majority errs by adopting a new 'reasonable likelihood' standard for reviewing jury instructions, abandoning the Court's traditional and more protective standard that asks whether a reasonable juror 'could have' interpreted the instruction unconstitutionally. Even under the majority's new standard, the instructions fail because the plain meaning of a 'circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime' refers only to facts related to the offense itself, not to the offender's character or background. The prosecutor's arguments reinforced this narrow interpretation, making it reasonably likely that the jury failed to give effect to Boyde's constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for reviewing ambiguous jury instructions in constitutional challenges, replacing the more defendant-friendly 'could have understood' test. This new, stricter standard makes it more difficult for defendants to succeed in such challenges, reflecting a greater emphasis on the finality of convictions. The decision also solidifies the constitutionality of mandatory 'weighing' statutes in capital sentencing, affirming that states can structure jury discretion by requiring the imposition of the death penalty once the jury finds that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating ones.
