Godfrey v. Georgia
446 U.S. 420 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's statutory aggravating circumstance in a capital case is unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments if it is applied so broadly that it fails to provide a meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which the death penalty is imposed from the many in which it is not. A state must channel the sentencer's discretion with clear and objective standards.
Facts:
- After a heated argument during which Robert Godfrey threatened his wife with a knife, she left him.
- Godfrey's wife then secured a warrant against him for aggravated assault and filed for divorce.
- Godfrey's attempts at reconciliation were rebuffed, and he came to believe his mother-in-law was encouraging the separation.
- Following two contentious phone calls with his wife, Godfrey took a shotgun and walked to his mother-in-law's trailer.
- Peering through a window, he observed his wife, mother-in-law, and 11-year-old daughter playing cards.
- Godfrey shot his wife through the window, killing her instantly.
- He then entered the trailer, struck his fleeing daughter with the barrel of the gun, and shot his mother-in-law in the head, killing her instantly.
- Godfrey then called the sheriff's office, identified himself, admitted to the killings, and surrendered peacefully.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Godfrey was indicted in a Georgia trial court on two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault.
- At trial, Godfrey pleaded not guilty and relied on a defense of temporary insanity.
- The jury found Godfrey guilty on all three counts.
- During the sentencing phase, the same jury imposed sentences of death for both murder convictions.
- The jury specified the aggravating circumstance it found was 'that the offense of murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.'
- On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and the death sentences, rejecting Godfrey's argument that the aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
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 Georgia Supreme Court's application of the statutory aggravating circumstance that a murder was 'outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman,' without a limiting construction requiring torture or aggravated battery, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by being unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes. The Georgia Supreme Court's application of the §(b)(7) aggravating circumstance in this case violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it was unconstitutionally broad and vague. A capital sentencing scheme must provide a meaningful basis for distinguishing cases where the death penalty is imposed from those where it is not. The phrase 'outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman' is unconstitutionally vague without a clear limiting construction, as almost any murder could be so described. Although the Georgia Supreme Court had previously suggested it would limit this factor to cases involving torture or an aggravated battery causing serious physical abuse to the victim before death, it failed to apply that construction here. Since Godfrey's crimes, which involved instantaneous deaths, were not meaningfully distinguishable from many other murders not receiving the death penalty, the sentence was arbitrary and capricious.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes. The Georgia Supreme Court’s construction of the aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague. While agreeing with the plurality's reasoning on vagueness, Justice Marshall reiterates his belief that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances. He argues that the Georgia Supreme Court's failure to apply a consistent, narrowing construction is not an aberration but a systemic problem. Crucially, he asserts that a reviewing court's post-hoc narrowing construction cannot cure a sentencing jury's unbridled discretion; the jury itself must be given clear, objective, and specific standards. The difficulty in eliminating arbitrariness suggests the entire project of capital punishment is doomed to fail.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No. The application of the aggravating circumstance was constitutional. The petitioner himself characterized his conduct as a 'hideous' crime, which is equivalent to the statutory terms 'horrible' or 'inhuman.' The plurality improperly assumes the new role of determining on a case-by-case basis whether a defendant's conduct is egregious enough for a death sentence. The Court's function is to ensure a defendant's rights are respected, not to second-guess a jury's judgment or dictate to states which of their intentional murderers may receive the ultimate penalty.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. The Georgia Supreme Court did not adopt an unconstitutionally broad construction of the aggravating circumstance. The facts of the case—cold-blooded, execution-style murders of family members with a disfiguring weapon and the terror inflicted upon the second victim—could reasonably be found by a jury to be 'vile,' 'horrible,' and 'inhuman,' and to involve 'torture' (the second victim's mental anguish) or 'depravity of mind.' This Court's role is not to second-guess the state factfinders or a state supreme court that is responsibly interpreting state law. A rational factfinder could have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance, and the Georgia Supreme Court has consistently and responsibly performed its review function in capital cases.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the holding of Gregg v. Georgia by demonstrating that a facially valid aggravating circumstance can be unconstitutional 'as applied.' The Court mandated that for broad aggravating factors like 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' to be constitutional, state appellate courts must adopt and consistently apply a clear, objective, and narrow limiting construction. This ruling prevents such factors from becoming 'catch-alls' that reintroduce the standardless discretion condemned in Furman v. Georgia. It compels states to define with greater precision what makes a particular murder exceptionally deserving of the death penalty, thereby reinforcing the need for channeled discretion in capital sentencing.
