Clemons v. Mississippi
494 U.S. 738 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment does not prevent a state appellate court from upholding a death sentence that was based in part on a constitutionally invalid aggravating circumstance. The court may do so by either reweighing the remaining valid aggravating circumstances against the mitigating evidence or by conducting a harmless-error analysis.
Facts:
- Chandler Clemons complained to friends that he needed money and suggested robbing a pizza delivery man.
- Clemons and two accomplices, Calvin and Hay, ordered a pizza to an apartment complex and waited for the delivery driver, Arthur Shorter.
- When Shorter arrived, Clemons, carrying a shotgun, forced Shorter out of his vehicle and robbed him.
- Hay asked if Shorter had seen Clemons' face, and when Clemons confirmed he had, Hay told Clemons he had to kill Shorter.
- Despite Shorter's pleas for his life, Clemons shot him.
- Shorter died shortly after being shot.
- Clemons disposed of the shotgun in his backyard, but an accomplice, Calvin, later told authorities about the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Chandler Clemons was indicted for capital murder in a Mississippi state trial court.
- A jury convicted Clemons of capital murder.
- Following a sentencing hearing, the same jury sentenced Clemons to death, finding the existence of two aggravating factors: that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain during a robbery, and that it was 'especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.'
- Clemons appealed his conviction and sentence to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, despite acknowledging that the 'especially heinous' factor was constitutionally vague, holding that the sentence could rest on the remaining valid aggravating factor.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted 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 the Eighth Amendment permit a state appellate court to uphold a death sentence imposed by a jury that relied in part on a constitutionally invalid aggravating circumstance by either reweighing the remaining valid aggravating factors against the mitigating evidence or by conducting a harmless-error analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the Eighth Amendment permits a state appellate court to uphold a death sentence imposed by a jury that relied on an invalid aggravating circumstance. The court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment does not grant a defendant the right to have a jury impose the death sentence or make the specific factual findings required for it, as established in cases like Cabana v. Bullock and Spaziano v. Florida. Therefore, an appellate court can perform these functions. The court also found no due process violation, as state law may authorize an appellate court to reweigh aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court held that careful appellate reweighing is consistent with the Eighth Amendment's requirement for individualized and reliable sentencing. Alternatively, an appellate court may apply a harmless-error analysis to determine if the jury would have imposed the death sentence even without the invalid factor. However, because the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion was unclear as to whether it had properly conducted either a reweighing or a harmless-error analysis, the judgment was vacated and remanded for clarification.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Blackmun
No, an appellate court cannot salvage a death sentence by reweighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. While Justice Blackmun agreed that the judgment should be vacated because the 'especially heinous' factor was unconstitutionally vague, he dissented from the majority's conclusion that appellate reweighing is a permissible remedy. He argued that when an appellate court reweighs evidence, it improperly assumes the role of the sentencer. Citing Caldwell v. Mississippi, he asserted that appellate courts are 'wholly ill-suited' to make the sensitive, fact-based, and credibility-dependent determinations required in capital sentencing, as they can only review a 'cold, printed record.' He contended that this procedure cannot adequately account for mitigating evidence or the unique character of the defendant, undermining the heightened reliability required by the Eighth Amendment in death penalty cases.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
Justice Brennan concurred in vacating the judgment and joined Justice Blackmun's dissent regarding the reweighing issue. He also reiterated his long-standing view that the death penalty is, in all circumstances, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Analysis:
This decision grants state appellate courts significant authority in capital cases by establishing two constitutional methods—reweighing and harmless-error review—to affirm a death sentence despite a jury's reliance on an invalid aggravating factor. This holding can streamline the capital appeals process in 'weighing' states, preventing automatic remand for a new sentencing hearing based on this type of error. However, the decision also blurs the line between the appellate function of review and the trial-level function of sentencing, raising concerns about whether a court reviewing a cold record can make the nuanced, individualized determination required by the Eighth Amendment, a point forcefully made by the dissent.
Unlock the full brief for Clemons v. Mississippi