Harmelin v. Michigan
501 U.S. 957 (1991)
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not contain a strict proportionality guarantee for non-capital sentences, but instead forbids only extreme sentences that are "grossly disproportionate" to the crime. Furthermore, the amendment does not require a sentencing judge to consider mitigating factors in non-capital cases.
Facts:
- Ronald Allen Harmelin was found by police to be in possession of 672.5 grams of cocaine.
- At the time of his arrest, Harmelin also possessed marijuana cigarettes, four brass cocaine straws, a cocaine spoon, Percodan tablets, a beeper, plastic bags containing cocaine, a coded address book, and $3,500 in cash.
- Harmelin had no prior felony convictions.
- Under a Michigan statute, the offense of possessing more than 650 grams of cocaine carried a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Allen Harmelin was convicted of possessing more than 650 grams of cocaine in a Michigan state trial court.
- The trial court imposed the statutorily mandated sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
- Harmelin appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, which initially reversed the conviction on other state constitutional grounds.
- On rehearing, the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated its initial decision and affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Harmelin's Eighth Amendment claim.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied Harmelin's petition for leave to appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eighth Amendment issue.
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 a statutorily mandated sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for possessing more than 650 grams of cocaine violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments because it is allegedly disproportionate and because the sentencing court cannot consider mitigating factors?
Opinions:
Plurality / majority - Justice Scalia
No. The Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality guarantee for terms of imprisonment. A historical review of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause shows it was originally understood to prohibit only certain modes of punishment, not to require that sentences be proportionate to the offense. The Court's prior decision in Solem v. Helm, which established a three-factor proportionality test, was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Regarding the mandatory nature of the sentence, there is no requirement for individualized sentencing in non-capital cases. The rule requiring consideration of mitigating factors is unique to death penalty jurisprudence because death is a qualitatively different punishment from any term of imprisonment.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. While the principle of stare decisis counsels adherence to a narrow proportionality principle under the Eighth Amendment, the sentence here is not unconstitutional. The amendment forbids only sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime. A court should first make a threshold comparison between the crime's gravity and the sentence's harshness. Given the grave harm to society caused by possessing such a large quantity of cocaine, this sentence does not lead to an inference of gross disproportionality. Therefore, a comparative analysis of sentences in other jurisdictions is unnecessary. The sentence's mandatory nature is also constitutional, as individualized sentencing is not required in non-capital cases.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. The Eighth Amendment does contain a proportionality requirement, and the Court's precedent in Solem v. Helm should be upheld and applied. An application of Solem's three-factor test reveals the sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate. First, the gravity of mere possession, even of a large quantity, is not as serious as other crimes like first-degree murder, which Michigan punishes with the same sentence. Second, the sentence is far more severe than those for other serious, violent crimes in Michigan. Third, no other state imposes a mandatory life sentence without parole on a first-time offender for this crime, demonstrating a national consensus against such a harsh penalty.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The dissenting opinion of Justice White is correct in its conclusion that the Eighth Amendment imposes a general proportionality requirement. However, it is also my continuing view that capital punishment is unconstitutional in all instances and requires special comparative proportionality review where it is not proscribed.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The sentence is unconstitutionally capricious and disproportionate. A mandatory sentence of life without parole shares a key characteristic with the death penalty: the offender will never regain freedom, and the sentence serves no rehabilitative function. It is irrational to conclude that every person who commits this offense is wholly incorrigible. The vast disparity between this sentence and sentences for similar crimes in other states and under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines highlights its cruel and unusual nature.
Analysis:
This case significantly limited the scope of Eighth Amendment proportionality review for non-capital sentences that was established in Solem v. Helm. The controlling opinion by Justice Kennedy established a much higher bar for a successful proportionality challenge, requiring a threshold finding of 'gross disproportionality' before any comparative analysis is undertaken. This decision grants legislatures substantial deference to enact severe, mandatory sentencing schemes, particularly for drug offenses, and reinforces the bright line between capital and non-capital sentencing rules. By curtailing judicial oversight of the length of prison sentences, the ruling made it exceedingly difficult for defendants to challenge legislatively mandated punishments on Eighth Amendment grounds.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Harmelin v. Michigan (1991)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"