Skipper v. South Carolina
476 U.S. 1 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a capital sentencing proceeding, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any relevant evidence of the defendant's character or record, which includes evidence of the defendant's good behavior and positive adjustment to life in jail while awaiting trial.
Facts:
- Ronald Skipper was arrested and charged with capital murder and rape in South Carolina.
- Skipper was incarcerated in jail for over seven months between his arrest and his trial.
- During his sentencing hearing, Skipper and his former wife testified briefly that he had conducted himself well during his pre-trial incarceration.
- Skipper sought to present additional testimony from two jailers and a regular jail visitor who would state that he had made a good adjustment to jail life.
- The prosecutor, during closing arguments, contended that Skipper would pose disciplinary problems if sentenced to prison and would likely rape other inmates.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Skipper was convicted of capital murder and rape in a South Carolina trial court.
- In a separate sentencing hearing, the trial judge excluded testimony from two jailers and a jail visitor regarding Skipper's good behavior in jail.
- The jury returned a sentence of death.
- Skipper, as the appellant, appealed his death sentence to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina, with South Carolina as the appellee, affirmed the death sentence, holding that evidence of future adaptability was properly excluded.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Skipper'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 trial court's exclusion of testimony regarding a capital defendant's good behavior in jail during the sentencing phase violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by precluding the jury from considering relevant mitigating evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. The exclusion of testimony regarding a capital defendant's good behavior in jail violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Under the principles established in Lockett v. Ohio and Eddings v. Oklahoma, the sentencer in a capital case cannot be precluded from considering any relevant mitigating evidence, and a defendant's good behavior in jail is relevant to their character and probable future conduct. Evidence that a defendant would not pose a danger if incarcerated is potentially mitigating and may serve as a basis for a sentence less than death. The court rejected the state's arguments that the evidence was irrelevant to future adaptability, was merely cumulative, or was properly excluded as opinion testimony, finding the testimony of disinterested jailers would carry significant weight and its exclusion was prejudicial, especially since the prosecutor argued Skipper's future dangerousness to the jury.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Yes, but for a different reason. The exclusion of the proffered testimony was unconstitutional not because it was mitigating evidence required by Lockett and Eddings, but because it violated the Due Process Clause. Evidence of post-crime good behavior is not 'mitigating' in the sense that it reduces culpability for the crime itself. However, because the prosecutor specifically introduced evidence and argued that Skipper would be a future danger in prison, elemental due process required that Skipper be allowed to rebut that information. The death sentence was imposed, in part, on the basis of information which Skipper had no opportunity to deny or explain, which is unconstitutional under Gardner v. Florida.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the scope of what constitutes relevant mitigating evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding under the Lockett/Eddings doctrine. By holding that a defendant's post-offense, pre-sentence good behavior in custody is relevant to character and future conduct, the Court established a critical avenue for capital defendants to argue for a life sentence. It solidifies the principle that future dangerousness is a two-way street; if the state can argue a defendant will be a future danger, the defendant has a constitutional right to present evidence to the contrary. This case provides a clear precedent for the admissibility of testimony from corrections officers and others who have observed a defendant's conduct while incarcerated.
Unlock the full brief for Skipper v. South Carolina