Jurek v. Texas
428 U.S. 262 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A capital punishment statute is constitutional if it narrows the class of murders eligible for the death penalty and provides for jury consideration of the particular circumstances of the crime and the individual defendant through guided questions, ensuring that the death sentence is not imposed arbitrarily or capriciously.
Facts:
- Jerry Lane Jurek, age 22, was drinking beer on the afternoon of the crime.
- Jurek picked up Wendy Adams, age 10, at a public swimming pool.
- Witnesses later saw a man resembling Jurek driving a pickup truck with a young girl screaming for help in the back.
- According to Jurek's incriminating statements, he took Adams to a river because she refused to have sexual relations with him.
- Jurek choked Adams, causing her to become unconscious, and then threw her body into the river.
- Adams's drowned body was discovered downriver two days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Lane Jurek was charged by indictment with the murder of Wendy Adams in the course of committing kidnapping and forcible rape.
- Following a trial in a Texas state court, a jury found Jurek guilty of capital murder.
- In a separate sentencing proceeding, the jury answered 'yes' to two statutory questions regarding the deliberateness of the act and Jurek's future dangerousness.
- Pursuant to Texas statute, the trial court judge imposed a sentence of death.
- Jurek appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, which affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
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 Texas capital punishment statute, which limits capital murder to five specific categories and requires the jury to answer two special issue questions before imposing a death sentence, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.
No. The Texas capital punishment statute does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The statute is constitutional because it provides for guided discretion in sentencing. First, it narrows the categories of murder for which the death penalty can be imposed to five specific, aggravated circumstances, which serves the same purpose as the aggravating factors listed in the Georgia and Florida statutes. Second, by requiring the jury to answer questions about the defendant's deliberateness and future dangerousness, the statute allows the jury to consider the particularized circumstances of the crime and the defendant, including any relevant mitigating evidence. This two-stage process ensures the sentencing authority has adequate guidance and focuses on the individual offender, preventing the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty prohibited by Furman v. Georgia.
Concurring - White, J.
I concur in the judgment. The Texas statute is constitutional because the death penalty is not forbidden under all circumstances, and this system is not arbitrary or freakish. The issues posed to the jury have a common-sense meaning that juries can understand, and the statute does not give juries discretionary power to dispense mercy. By limiting the death penalty to a narrow group of the most brutal crimes, Texas aims to ensure its consistent application. Therefore, it does not suffer from the same infirmities as the statute struck down in Furman.
Concurring - Burger, C.J.
I concur in the judgment, for the reasons stated in my dissent in Furman v. Georgia.
Concurring - Blackmun, J.
I concur in the judgment, for the reasons stated in my dissent in Furman v. Georgia.
Analysis:
This case, decided on the same day as Gregg v. Georgia, was crucial in reinstating the death penalty in the United States after Furman v. Georgia. It affirmed that a capital sentencing scheme is constitutional if it provides 'guided discretion' to the sentencer. The significance of Jurek lies in its approval of a different statutory model than Georgia's; instead of listing aggravating and mitigating factors, Texas guided the jury's discretion by requiring it to answer specific factual questions. This decision broadened the scope of constitutionally acceptable death penalty statutes, giving states more flexibility in designing their capital punishment systems.
