Johnson v. Mississippi
1988 U.S. LEXIS 2657, 486 U.S. 578, 108 S. Ct. 1981 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's requirement for reliability in capital sentencing prohibits the use of a prior felony conviction as an aggravating circumstance if that conviction has been subsequently reversed and vacated, even if other aggravating circumstances were found.
Facts:
- On December 31, 1981, Samuel Johnson and three companions were stopped for speeding by a Mississippi highway patrolman.
- While the officer was searching the car, Samuel Johnson stabbed him, and one of his companions then used the officer’s gun to kill him.
- In 1963, Samuel Johnson was convicted in Monroe County, New York, for second-degree assault with intent to commit first-degree rape.
- During the 1963 New York assault trial, police obtained an incriminating statement from Johnson, which was admitted into evidence without a prior hearing on its voluntariness, and Johnson was never informed of his right to appeal.
- After his Mississippi conviction, Johnson's attorneys successfully prosecuted a postconviction proceeding in New York, which led the New York Court of Appeals to reverse and vacate his 1963 conviction.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel Johnson was apprehended, tried, and convicted of murder in Mississippi.
- A jury in Mississippi sentenced Johnson to death, finding three aggravating circumstances, one of which was a prior felony conviction from New York.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Johnson’s conviction and death sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on Johnson's initial direct appeal.
- Following the reversal of his 1963 New York conviction by the New York Court of Appeals, Samuel Johnson filed a motion in the Mississippi Supreme Court seeking postconviction relief from his death sentence.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court denied Johnson's motion for postconviction relief, concluding that the reversal of the New York conviction did not affect the validity of his death sentence, with three justices dissenting.
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 prohibit a state from upholding a death sentence that was based, in part, on a prior felony conviction that was subsequently reversed and vacated?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from upholding a death sentence that was based, in part, on a prior felony conviction that was subsequently reversed and vacated. The Eighth Amendment mandates a special 'need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment' in capital cases. Using a conviction that has been reversed and vacated as an aggravating circumstance for a death sentence is materially inaccurate and deprives the prosecutor’s evidence of any relevance to the sentencing decision. The fact that Johnson served time in prison pursuant to an invalid conviction does not make the conviction itself relevant. The use of the invalid conviction was prejudicial, as the prosecutor repeatedly urged the jury to give it weight in balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Mississippi Supreme Court's concern that its procedures would become capricious by vacating such a sentence is unfounded; a rule giving a defendant the benefit of such postconviction relief actually reduces the risk of arbitrary sentences. Furthermore, the state procedural bar invoked by the Mississippi Supreme Court (that Johnson failed to raise the issue on direct appeal) is not an adequate and independent state ground for refusing to vacate the sentence because it has not been consistently or regularly applied under Mississippi law, as demonstrated by Phillips v. State and Nixon v. State, which suggest that collateral attack, not direct appeal, is the proper forum for challenging prior convictions.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
I join the Court’s opinion except insofar as the judgment, which is without prejudice to further sentencing proceedings, does not expressly preclude the reimposition of the death penalty. Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, I would direct that the resentencing proceedings be circumscribed such that the State may not reimpose the death sentence.
Concurring - Justice White
I join the Court’s opinion, agreeing that the death sentence cannot stand, given the introduction of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence at the hearing before the jury. That evidence, however, was irrelevant to the other two aggravating circumstances found to be present. I note that the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court’s opinion, leaving it to the Mississippi Supreme Court to decide whether a new sentencing hearing must be held or whether that court should itself decide the appropriate sentence without reference to the inadmissible evidence, thus undertaking to reweigh the two untainted aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the Eighth Amendment's heightened reliability requirement in capital sentencing, emphasizing that the evidentiary basis for aggravating factors must be legally sound. It clarifies that a prior conviction, once reversed, loses its legal validity and cannot be used to support a death sentence, thereby preventing the arbitrary imposition of capital punishment based on flawed evidence. The decision also provides important guidance on the Supreme Court's review of state procedural bars, underscoring that such bars must be consistently applied and adequate under state law to preclude federal review. This ruling will likely impact future cases by requiring courts to meticulously vet the validity of all aggravating circumstances presented in capital sentencing, especially those derived from prior convictions, and by ensuring that state procedural rules do not unjustly impede federal claims regarding constitutional rights.
