Lockett v. Ohio
438 U.S. 586 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that in a capital case, the sentencer must not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.
Facts:
- Sandra Lockett became acquainted with Al Parker and Nathan Earl Dew and brought them to her hometown of Akron, Ohio.
- When Parker and Dew needed money, Lockett suggested robbing a local grocery and furniture store and offered to get a gun.
- The group, including Lockett, later agreed to a plan to rob a pawnshop.
- Lockett's role was to drive the getaway car; she did not enter the pawnshop because the owner knew her.
- During the robbery, the pawnbroker grabbed a gun held by Parker, and the gun discharged, firing a fatal shot.
- Lockett waited in the running car, helped Parker escape after he told her what happened, and later hid the gun and her accomplices from the police.
- Lockett did not personally shoot or intend to kill the pawnbroker.
- A presentence report indicated Lockett had a minor criminal record, a favorable prognosis for rehabilitation, and was successfully undergoing drug treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra Lockett was charged with aggravated murder with aggravating specifications and aggravated robbery in an Ohio trial court.
- A jury found Lockett guilty of all charges.
- Pursuant to Ohio law, the trial judge considered the statutory mitigating circumstances and, finding none were established by a preponderance of the evidence, imposed a sentence of death.
- Lockett appealed her conviction and sentence directly to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio, the state's highest court, affirmed the trial court's judgment and death sentence.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Lockett's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 an Ohio statute that limits a capital sentencer's consideration of mitigating circumstances to only three specific factors violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the Ohio statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by unconstitutionally limiting the consideration of mitigating factors. The penalty of death is qualitatively different from any other sentence, requiring a greater degree of reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment. To ensure this reliability, the sentencer must be allowed to conduct an individualized consideration of the defendant's character, record, and the circumstances of the offense. The Ohio statute, by mandating the death penalty unless one of three narrowly defined mitigating factors is established, prevents the sentencer from giving independent mitigating weight to other relevant factors, such as the defendant's minor role in the offense, age, or lack of specific intent to kill. This creates an unacceptable risk that the death penalty will be imposed despite factors that may call for a less severe penalty, which is incompatible with the Constitution.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the Ohio statute is unconstitutional as applied. The death sentence is improper for an accomplice who only aided and abetted a murder without allowing the sentencer to consider the extent of her involvement and her degree of mens rea. Additionally, the Ohio procedural rules unconstitutionally burdened Lockett's right to a jury trial under United States v. Jackson. The rules allowed a court to dismiss aggravating specifications 'in the interests of justice' if a defendant pleaded guilty, a discretionary mercy option unavailable to a defendant who, like Lockett, insisted on their right to a trial.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes, the death sentence must be vacated. The death penalty is, under all circumstances, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Imposing a death sentence on a defendant for a killing she did not commit or intend to commit, under a theory of vicarious liability for felony murder, violates the principle of proportionality. The Ohio statute's mandatory approach fails to recognize the unique individuality of every criminal defendant and demonstrates that appellate review is insufficient to prevent the wrongful imposition of this irrevocable penalty.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice White
Yes, the death sentence should be reversed, but the plurality's reasoning is wrong. The plurality's new rule requiring consideration of all mitigating circumstances will restore the unguided discretion that the Court found unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia. The correct reason to reverse is that the Eighth Amendment is violated when the death penalty is imposed without a finding that the defendant possessed a purpose to cause the death of the victim. The jury instructions and the Ohio law allowed Lockett to be sentenced to death without any finding that she intended to kill.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Rehnquist
No, the Ohio statute is constitutional. The Court's capital punishment jurisprudence has gone from 'pillar to post,' creating unpredictability. The plurality's new constitutional rule—that a sentencer must be allowed to consider any evidence the defense wishes to offer—is not a logical application of precedent and will institutionalize, rather than eliminate, arbitrary sentencing by unleashing total discretion. The Ohio statute is a valid legislative choice, Lockett was fairly tried and convicted, and her sentence should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case established the constitutional requirement of individualized sentencing in capital cases, marking a significant evolution from the anti-discretion principle of Furman v. Georgia. The 'Lockett rule' requires that the sentencer be able to consider any relevant mitigating evidence concerning the defendant's character, record, or the circumstances of the crime. This holding invalidated state statutes that provided an exclusive, limited list of mitigating factors and forced legislatures to amend their laws to include a 'catch-all' provision allowing for broad consideration of mitigating evidence. It remains a cornerstone of modern capital punishment jurisprudence, ensuring that death sentences are based on a comprehensive assessment of the individual defendant.
Unlock the full brief for Lockett v. Ohio