Harris v. Alabama
513 U.S. 504, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1004, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 1623 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment does not require a state to define the specific weight a sentencing judge must accord an advisory jury's verdict in a capital case. A capital sentencing scheme is constitutional so long as it adequately channels the sentencer's discretion to prevent arbitrary results.
Facts:
- Louise Harris was married to the victim, a deputy sheriff, while also having an affair with Lorenzo McCarter.
- Harris asked McCarter to find someone to kill her husband so she could collect approximately $250,000 in death benefits.
- McCarter recruited Michael Sockwell and Alex Hood, paying them an initial $100 for the murder.
- On the planned night, Harris alerted McCarter via beeper that her husband was leaving for his night shift.
- As the husband stopped his car at an intersection, Sockwell ambushed him and shot him to death with a shotgun.
- McCarter later testified against Harris about the murder-for-hire conspiracy in exchange for prosecutors not seeking the death penalty against him.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in an Alabama trial court convicted Louise Harris of capital murder.
- At a separate sentencing hearing, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole by a 7-to-5 vote.
- The trial judge rejected the jury’s advisory verdict and imposed a sentence of death.
- Harris appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, where she was the appellant, which affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Harris then appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which also affirmed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Harris's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the constitutionality of the sentencing scheme.
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 require a state to specify the weight a sentencing judge must give to an advisory jury's recommendation in a capital case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The Eighth Amendment does not require a state to define the weight a sentencing judge must accord an advisory jury verdict. The Constitution permits a trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital sentence, so it is not offended when a state requires that judge to consider a jury's recommendation and trusts the judge to give it proper weight. The Court has previously rejected the idea that a specific method for balancing mitigating and aggravating factors is constitutionally required. The hallmark of the analysis is not the particular weight a state places on the jury’s advice, but whether the overall scheme adequately channels the sentencer’s discretion to prevent arbitrary results. Alabama's system, which requires weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, provides sufficient guidance. While the Court has spoken favorably of Florida's 'great weight' standard, those statements do not mean that standard is constitutionally required.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The complete absence of standards to guide a judge's consideration of the jury's verdict renders Alabama's statute invalid. The death penalty is fundamentally different, and its justification rests on expressing the community's moral outrage, a function best performed by a jury representing a cross-section of the community. Allowing an elected judge to have unbridled discretion to override a jury's decision for life severs the critical 'link between contemporary community values and the penal system.' Alabama is unique among states with judicial override systems in its refusal to constrain the judge's power, unlike Florida which requires that the facts suggesting death be 'so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.' The absence of any standard renders Alabama's scheme fundamentally unfair and results in cruel and unusual punishment.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Court's position that the Constitution grants states significant latitude in structuring their capital sentencing procedures. It clarifies that while a judge's discretion must be guided, the specific mechanism for incorporating a jury's advisory opinion is a matter of state policy, not constitutional law. By rejecting the argument that Florida's 'great weight' standard is a constitutional minimum, the Court reinforced the principle from Spaziano v. Florida that a judge can be the ultimate sentencer. This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants in 'hybrid' sentencing states to challenge a judge's override of a jury's recommendation for life imprisonment, shifting the focus from the weight of the jury's role to the overall rationality of the sentencing scheme.
