Lowenfield v. Phelps
484 U.S. 231 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A death sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment when the sole aggravating circumstance found by the jury at the penalty phase duplicates an element of the capital offense, as long as the state's statutory scheme genuinely narrows the class of death-eligible defendants at the guilt phase. Furthermore, a trial court's combination of polling a deadlocked jury about the helpfulness of further deliberations and giving a supplemental verdict-urging instruction is not unconstitutionally coercive.
Facts:
- Petitioner Leslie Lowenfield had previously lived with a woman named Sheila Thomas.
- Lowenfield shot and killed Thomas, three members of her family, and one of her male friends.
- In committing these acts, Lowenfield had the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person.
- This intent was an essential element of the first-degree murder charge under Louisiana law.
Procedural Posture:
- Lowenfield was convicted in a Louisiana state trial court of three counts of first-degree murder.
- During the sentencing phase, the jury sent a note stating it was unable to reach a decision.
- The trial judge polled the jury twice on whether further deliberations would be helpful and then gave a supplemental verdict-urging instruction.
- The jury then returned a verdict recommending the death sentence on all three counts.
- Lowenfield appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- Lowenfield filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which was denied.
- Lowenfield, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's denial of relief.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Fifth Circuit.
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 a death sentence violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when (1) the trial judge polled a deadlocked sentencing jury about the helpfulness of further deliberations and gave a supplemental verdict-urging instruction, and (2) the sole aggravating circumstance found by the jury duplicates an element of the underlying first-degree murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The death sentence is not unconstitutional. First, the combination of polling the jury and giving a supplemental charge was not coercive. The trial court's supplemental instruction did not speak specifically to minority jurors and was less coercive than a traditional 'Allen charge.' The polling was also permissible because the judge did not ask how the jury stood on the merits of the verdict, but rather whether further deliberations would be helpful, a question which does not inherently reveal the jury's substantive division. Second, a capital sentencing scheme is constitutional if it genuinely narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. This narrowing function may be performed by the legislature at the guilt phase by narrowly defining the categories of murder for which a death sentence may be imposed. Louisiana's statute, by defining first-degree murder to require specific elements like the intent to kill more than one person, performs this narrowing function at the guilt stage. Therefore, the fact that the jury's sentencing-phase finding of an aggravating circumstance—that the offender 'knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person'—duplicated an element of the crime found at the guilt phase does not render the sentence constitutionally infirm.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The death sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority’s coercion analysis fails to consider the totality of the circumstances, including that a jury deadlock would have automatically resulted in a life sentence. In this context, the judge’s repeated polling and verdict-urging charge created an unacceptable risk of coercion, particularly after the second poll isolated a single holdout juror. Furthermore, the constitutional narrowing function must be performed during the sentencing phase to properly guide the jury’s discretion and impress upon them the gravity of their decision. Allowing the narrowing to occur at the guilt phase, when the jury is unaware of the sentencing implications of its findings, unconstitutionally diminishes the jury’s sense of responsibility for the life-or-death decision, creating a process biased in favor of death.
Analysis:
This decision provides states with significant flexibility in structuring their capital punishment statutes. It validates 'narrowing' the class of death-eligible offenders at the guilt phase through restrictive definitions of capital murder, rather than exclusively at the penalty phase through aggravating circumstances. This holding potentially weakens the role of aggravating factors as an independent check on jury discretion at the sentencing stage. The case also clarifies the constitutional limits on a judge's interactions with a deadlocked jury in a capital case, distinguishing permissible encouragement from unconstitutional coercion under a 'totality of the circumstances' view.
Unlock the full brief for Lowenfield v. Phelps