Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment does not require a state appellate court to conduct a comparative proportionality review of a death sentence, comparing it to sentences in similar cases, so long as the state's capital sentencing scheme contains other adequate procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty.
Facts:
- On July 5, 1978, Robert Alton Harris and his brother decided to steal a car to use as a getaway vehicle for a bank robbery.
- Harris approached two teenage boys in their car and, at gunpoint, forced them to drive to a wooded area.
- After a brief conversation, Harris shot and killed one of the boys.
- Harris then pursued the second boy who had fled and killed him as well.
- After the killings, Harris and his brother ate the victims' hamburgers before proceeding with the bank robbery.
- Harris and his brother were apprehended shortly after the robbery and confessed to the murders.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Harris was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in a California trial court.
- Harris, as appellant, appealed to the California Supreme Court, which rejected his constitutional claims and affirmed the sentence.
- Harris filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in California state courts, which was denied.
- Harris then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which denied the writ.
- Harris, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the State (represented by Warden Pulley) as appellee.
- The Court of Appeals held that comparative proportionality review was constitutionally required and ordered that the writ be granted unless the California Supreme Court performed such a review within 120 days.
- The State, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted to decide the constitutional question.
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 Eighth Amendment require a state appellate court to conduct a comparative proportionality review, comparing the sentence in the case before it with penalties imposed in similar cases, before affirming a death sentence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, the Eighth Amendment does not require comparative proportionality review in every capital case. While such review is a useful safeguard against arbitrary sentencing, our precedents do not establish it as an indispensable component of a constitutional death penalty scheme. In Jurek v. Texas, the Court upheld a capital sentencing statute that did not include comparative proportionality review, demonstrating it is not a universal requirement. The crucial constitutional concern, stemming from Furman v. Georgia, is that a state's system must sufficiently narrow the class of death-eligible offenders and provide for guided discretion and meaningful appellate review to minimize the risk of arbitrary and capricious outcomes. The California statute at issue, which requires the finding of at least one 'special circumstance' beyond a reasonable doubt, provides jury guidance on relevant factors, and includes automatic appellate review, contains sufficient checks on arbitrariness to pass constitutional muster without a mandated comparative proportionality review.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, comparative proportionality review is constitutionally required. The death penalty continues to be administered in an arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory manner, failing to meet the standards set forth in Furman v. Georgia. Experience in the more than 30 states that require this review shows that it serves as a crucial, albeit limited, safeguard to identify and vacate the most extreme and disproportionate death sentences. By identifying vast sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants, this review helps eliminate some of the irrationality that plagues capital punishment. To ignore this procedural protection is to sanction continued executions under an unexamined assumption that the system is rational and non-arbitrary, which available evidence suggests it is not.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No, our case law does not establish a constitutional requirement for comparative proportionality review in every capital case. However, the precedents from Gregg, Proffitt, and Jurek do establish that some form of meaningful appellate review is an essential and indispensable component of any constitutional capital sentencing scheme. While comparative proportionality review is an effective safeguard, it is not the only method by which an appellate court can prevent the arbitrary or capricious imposition of a death sentence. The core constitutional requirement is the existence of meaningful appellate review, not one specific form of it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the Eighth Amendment mandates a fair and non-arbitrary capital sentencing system overall, but does not prescribe one specific procedure, like comparative proportionality review, for all states to follow. It gives states more flexibility in designing their death penalty statutes, shifting the constitutional focus from the presence of any single procedural safeguard to the aggregate effect of all safeguards in the system. The ruling reinforces that the key is whether the scheme as a whole effectively narrows the class of death-eligible offenders and guides sentencing discretion to prevent the random imposition of death sentences identified in Furman. This has allowed states like California and Texas to maintain capital punishment schemes without this specific form of review, as long as other protections are deemed adequate.
Unlock the full brief for Pulley v. Harris