Roberts v. Louisiana
431 U.S. 633 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that imposes a mandatory death penalty for a narrowly defined category of murder, such as the murder of a police officer, is unconstitutional. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require an individualized sentencing determination where the court considers the character of the offender and the circumstances of the offense.
Facts:
- Harry Roberts killed Police Officer Dennis McInerney.
- At the time of his death, Officer McInerney was engaged in the performance of his lawful duties.
- Roberts was charged under a Louisiana statute defining first-degree murder as the intentional killing of a peace officer on duty.
- The Louisiana statute at issue required a mandatory death sentence for anyone convicted of this crime.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Harry Roberts was indicted, tried, and convicted of first-degree murder in a Louisiana state trial court.
- Pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:30(2), the trial court imposed a mandatory death sentence.
- Roberts appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which affirmed his conviction and sentence.
- Roberts filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the question of whether the mandatory death sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
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 statute that mandates the death penalty for the first-degree murder of a police officer, without allowing for the consideration of mitigating circumstances, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A state statute that mandates the death penalty for the murder of a police officer violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment requires an individualized capital sentencing decision that allows for the consideration of mitigating circumstances related to the offender and the offense. While the murder of a peace officer is a significant aggravating circumstance, it does not eliminate the possibility of relevant mitigating factors, such as the offender's youth, lack of a prior record, or influence of extreme emotional disturbance. Because the Louisiana statute provides no opportunity to consider such particularized mitigating factors, it is unconstitutional, consistent with the Court's prior holdings in Woodson v. North Carolina and Stanislaus Roberts v. Louisiana.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Louisiana statute should be sustained. The Chief Justice dissented on the basis of his dissenting statements in Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325 (1976), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976), which argued in favor of the constitutionality of mandatory death sentences.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. The mandatory death penalty for killing a peace officer is constitutional. The Court's decision is wrongly bound by dicta in the plurality opinion of Stanislaus Roberts, which concerned a different part of the Louisiana statute (felony murder) and did not give focused consideration to the unique issue of murdering a police officer. This case should be treated as a new question, and under that analysis, the intentional murder of a peace officer falls within the narrow category of homicides for which a mandatory death sentence is a permissible state response.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The mandatory death sentence for the intentional murder of a police officer is not cruel and unusual punishment. The State has a paramount interest in protecting police officers, who are the 'foot soldiers of an ordered society,' and this interest is so compelling that the legislature may decide it outweighs any possible mitigating factors. The question is not whether mitigating factors might exist, but whether they are of sufficient force to constitutionally require their consideration against such a grave aggravating circumstance. The State is entitled to determine that the premeditated murder of a peace officer is so heinous that no combination of mitigating factors can overcome the appropriateness of the death penalty.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Court's rejection of mandatory death penalty statutes, extending the principle from Woodson v. North Carolina to narrowly defined capital crimes. It establishes that the requirement for individualized sentencing—considering both aggravating and mitigating factors—is a core component of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in all capital cases. By rejecting a special exception for the murder of a police officer, the Court signals that no category of crime is so heinous as to permit an automatic death sentence, thereby reinforcing the primacy of individualized assessment in capital punishment.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Roberts v. Louisiana (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"