McKoy v. North Carolina
494 U.S. 433 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, a state's capital sentencing scheme may not require jury unanimity as to the existence of a mitigating circumstance before individual jurors are permitted to consider that circumstance in their sentencing determination.
Facts:
- Dock McKoy, Jr., was convicted of first-degree murder in North Carolina.
- During the sentencing phase, the jury was instructed that it must be unanimous in finding any mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The verdict form required the jury to write 'Yes' if they unanimously found a mitigating circumstance and 'No' if they did not unanimously find it.
- The jury unanimously found two aggravating circumstances: a prior violent felony and that the victim was a deputy sheriff engaged in his official duties.
- The jury unanimously found two mitigating circumstances: McKoy's impaired capacity and his borderline intellectual functioning (IQ of 74).
- The jury did not unanimously find several other proffered mitigating circumstances, including that McKoy was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance and his age of 65.
- The jury was then instructed to weigh only the aggravating and mitigating circumstances it had unanimously found in determining whether to recommend the death penalty.
- Based on this limited weighing process, the jury recommended a sentence of death.
Procedural Posture:
- Dock McKoy, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder in a North Carolina trial court.
- Following a sentencing hearing, the jury recommended a sentence of death, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
- McKoy appealed his death sentence directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
- While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mills v. Maryland.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in a split decision, affirmed McKoy's sentence, finding the North Carolina scheme distinguishable from the one in Mills.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted McKoy'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 a state's capital sentencing scheme that prevents a jury from considering any mitigating factor that the jury does not unanimously find to exist violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes, North Carolina's unanimity requirement violates the Constitution by preventing the sentencer from considering all mitigating evidence. The Court's precedent in Mills v. Maryland governs this case, as the North Carolina scheme creates the same constitutional infirmity. The unanimity requirement allows a single 'holdout' juror to prevent the other jurors from giving effect to mitigating evidence they believe exists, which violates the principle established in Lockett v. Ohio that the sentencer may not be precluded from considering any aspect of a defendant's character or record as a basis for a sentence less than death. The state's argument that evidence becomes 'irrelevant' if not unanimously found is a distortion of the concept of relevance. Mills requires that each individual juror be permitted to consider and give effect to all mitigating evidence when deciding whether to vote for a sentence of death, and this consideration cannot be foreclosed by the failure of other jurors to agree.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. This concurrence clarifies that the Court's opinion does not invalidate jury instructions that require an individual juror to be convinced of a mitigating circumstance's existence by a preponderance of the evidence before that juror considers it. Nor does the opinion forbid a state from placing the burden of persuasion on the defendant regarding mitigating circumstances. With these understandings, he joins the majority opinion.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes. This concurrence argues forcefully that Mills v. Maryland directly controls the outcome of this case and was correctly decided, refuting the dissent's claim that the relevant holding in Mills was mere dicta. The constitutional question of the unanimity requirement was squarely at issue in Mills. Furthermore, North Carolina’s requirement is an 'extraordinary departure' from the customary operation of juries, which typically render unanimous verdicts on ultimate issues without needing to agree on every preliminary factual issue underlying that verdict.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes. Concurring only in the judgment, this opinion disagrees with the majority's reliance on the Lockett line of cases. The proper basis for the decision is that the North Carolina scheme can produce a result that is the 'height of arbitrariness.' A single juror's refusal to find a mitigating factor can force the other 11 jurors to disregard it, leading to a mandatory death sentence that 11 of the 12 jurors believe is inappropriate. This arbitrary and capricious potential is what renders the scheme unconstitutional, not a novel application of Lockett.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, the North Carolina capital sentencing scheme does not violate the Constitution. The dissent argues that Mills v. Maryland did not decide this issue, as the unconstitutionality of a unanimity requirement was conceded by the state in that case. The principle from Lockett v. Ohio prevents a state from precluding the 'sentencer'—the jury as a body—from considering categories of mitigating evidence; it does not dictate the internal decision-making process of how the jury must find facts. Requiring unanimity is a permissible rule that channels jury discretion and ensures the reliability of its findings, consistent with how juries operate in finding facts for affirmative defenses. The majority's holding undermines the principle of guided discretion and turns the jury's collective deliberation into a mere poll of individual jurors.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Court's holding in Mills v. Maryland, making it unequivocally clear that requiring juror unanimity on mitigating factors in capital cases is unconstitutional. It elevates the individual juror's ability to consider any mitigating evidence over the state's interest in procedural rules designed to ensure reliability through consensus. The ruling significantly impacts capital sentencing procedures, forcing states to ensure their jury instructions allow each juror to consider and give effect to any mitigating evidence they personally find persuasive, regardless of whether a consensus is reached. This reinforces the constitutional mandate for individualized sentencing by preventing a single juror's 'veto' from blocking the consideration of evidence that could lead to a sentence less than death.
Unlock the full brief for McKoy v. North Carolina