Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeffers
497 U.S. 764 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a federal habeas court reviews a state court's application of a constitutionally narrowed aggravating circumstance in a capital case, the review is limited to determining whether any rational factfinder could have found the aggravating circumstance to exist, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Facts:
- In May 1976, Jimmie Wayne Jeffers and his girlfriend, Penelope Cheney, were arrested on narcotics charges.
- Jeffers remained in jail while Cheney was released on bond.
- While incarcerated, Jeffers received reports that Cheney was cooperating with police and providing them with information about his criminal activities.
- After his own release, Jeffers invited Cheney to a motel room he was sharing with another woman, Doris Van Der Veer.
- When Van Der Veer returned to the room, she found Cheney unconscious on the bed from a heroin overdose Jeffers had administered.
- Jeffers told Van Der Veer that he had given Cheney enough heroin "to kill a horse and this bitch won’t die."
- Jeffers then strangled Cheney to death, first with a belt and then with his bare hands.
- After confirming Cheney was dead, Jeffers beat her corpse repeatedly, calling her a "bitch" and a "dirty snitch," and dedicating each blow to individuals she had informed upon.
Procedural Posture:
- An Arizona jury convicted Jimmie Wayne Jeffers of first-degree murder.
- The trial court found two aggravating circumstances and sentenced him to death.
- On direct review, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- At a second sentencing hearing, the trial court again found two aggravating circumstances ('grave risk of death to another' and 'especially heinous, cruel, or depraved') and resentenced Jeffers to death.
- On a second direct appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, reversing the 'grave risk' aggravator but upholding the 'especially heinous and depraved' aggravator.
- Jeffers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, which the court denied.
- Jeffers, the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The State, represented by the warden Ricketts, was the appellee.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the death sentence, finding the 'heinous or depraved' circumstance was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Jeffers.
- The State, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a state court applies a constitutionally narrowed aggravating circumstance to the facts of a capital case, is a federal habeas court's review limited to determining whether any rational factfinder could have found the aggravating circumstance to exist?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes. When a state court applies a constitutionally valid aggravating circumstance to the facts of a case, a federal habeas court's review is limited to the 'rational factfinder' standard established in Jackson v. Virginia. The Court first held that Arizona's 'especially heinous, cruel or depraved' aggravating circumstance, as construed by the Arizona Supreme Court, is not unconstitutionally vague on its face, relying on the concurrent holding in Walton v. Arizona. Because the state has adopted a constitutionally narrow construction, the only remaining question is one of application, not facial validity. Federal habeas corpus relief is not a remedy for errors of state law. Therefore, the proper standard is not a de novo review, but a deferential one that asks whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the aggravating circumstance. Applying that standard here, a rational factfinder could have concluded that Jeffers' actions—beating the victim's corpse while cursing her as a 'snitch'—constituted 'relishing' the murder and inflicting 'gratuitous violence,' thus satisfying the 'heinous and depraved' elements as defined by Arizona courts. The Court of Appeals erred by conducting its own case-by-case comparison, which amounts to second-guessing the state court's application of its own law.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. A federal habeas court must do more than apply a 'rational factfinder' standard; it must ensure that a state's narrowing construction of an aggravating circumstance is consistently applied and remains constitutionally adequate. The majority incorrectly assumes that the Arizona Supreme Court has established a constitutionally sufficient 'narrowing construction' for the 'heinous or depraved' circumstance. The factors listed in State v. Gretzler, such as 'relishing the murder,' are merely illustrative examples, not genuine limitations. The Arizona court has identified so many factors and applied them so broadly that the circumstance fails to genuinely narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. The majority's reliance on a single sentence of dictum from Walton v. Arizona is a 'parody of constitutional adjudication.' A state court's application of an aggravating factor is a question of federal constitutional law determining death eligibility, not merely a question of state law. Therefore, federal courts have a duty to conduct a comparative analysis to determine whether the state court's application of its own standard has expanded it to the point of being unconstitutionally vague.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the scope of federal habeas review for death penalty sentences. By applying the highly deferential 'rational factfinder' standard from Jackson v. Virginia, the Court makes it substantially more difficult for capital defendants to challenge a state court's factual application of an aggravating circumstance in federal court. The ruling treats the application of a facially valid aggravator as a finding of fact, insulating it from the de novo review federal courts might apply to questions of law. This empowers state supreme courts as the primary arbiters of whether the facts of a particular murder meet the criteria for the death penalty, diminishing the role of federal courts as a check on potential arbitrariness in capital sentencing.
Unlock the full brief for Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeffers