Maynard, Warden, et al. v. Cartwright
486 U.S. 356 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory aggravating circumstance in a capital punishment case that describes the murder as "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" is unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment unless state courts have applied a clear and objective limiting construction to guide the jury's discretion.
Facts:
- Respondent Cartwright, a disgruntled ex-employee, entered the home of Hugh and Charma Riddle.
- Cartwright confronted Charma Riddle in a hallway with a shotgun.
- During a struggle over the weapon, Cartwright shot Mrs. Riddle twice in the legs.
- Cartwright then proceeded to the living room where he shot and killed Hugh Riddle.
- He returned to the bedroom where Mrs. Riddle had dragged herself, slit her throat, and stabbed her twice with a hunting knife.
- Mrs. Riddle survived the attack and called the police after Cartwright fled.
Procedural Posture:
- Cartwright was tried and found guilty of first-degree murder in an Oklahoma state trial court.
- The jury, finding two statutory aggravating circumstances, imposed the death penalty.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters, affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Cartwright's subsequent petition for state collateral relief was denied, and this denial was also affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Cartwright then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. District Court, which was denied.
- As appellant, Cartwright appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where a three-judge panel initially affirmed the denial.
- The Tenth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc (by the full court), which reversed the District Court's decision, holding the 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' aggravating circumstance to be unconstitutionally vague.
- The State of Oklahoma, through petitioner Maynard, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 use of Oklahoma's statutory aggravating circumstance that a murder was 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,' without a specific limiting construction by the state's courts to guide the jury, violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. An aggravating circumstance that a murder was 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide sufficient guidance to a capital sentencing jury. Such language does not adequately channel the sentencer's discretion and creates a risk of the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty, which was held invalid in Furman v. Georgia. Citing its decision in Godfrey v. Georgia, the Court found that an ordinary person could characterize almost any murder as 'especially heinous,' meaning the term fails to narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. Simply reviewing the shocking facts of a particular case and concluding they fit the vague description is not a substitute for a clear, objective, and limiting construction of the statutory language that provides a principled way to distinguish cases where the death penalty is imposed from those where it is not.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes. Justice Brennan joined the Court's opinion but wrote separately to reiterate his long-held view that the death penalty is, in all circumstances, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, while he agreed with vacating the death sentence, he would have gone further and directed that the state be precluded from reimposing the death penalty on remand.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle from Godfrey v. Georgia that aggravating circumstances in capital cases must be defined with precision to pass Eighth Amendment scrutiny. The decision solidifies the requirement that facially vague terms like 'heinous, atrocious, or cruel' must be narrowed by a specific, limiting construction from state courts to provide objective guidance to juries. It clarifies that the shocking nature of a crime's facts cannot, by itself, cure a constitutionally vague statute. This ruling places a continuing burden on states to refine their capital sentencing schemes to ensure that the discretion of juries is narrowly channeled, preventing arbitrary or emotional decision-making in life-or-death cases.
Unlock the full brief for Maynard, Warden, et al. v. Cartwright