State v. Gregory
427 P.3d 621 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The death penalty, as administered in Washington, is unconstitutional under the state constitution's cruel punishment clause because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner and fails to serve any legitimate penological goal.
Facts:
- In 1996, Allen Eugene Gregory raped, robbed, and murdered G.H. in her home.
- In 1998, police began investigating Gregory for a separate rape allegation made by a woman named R.S.
- During the R.S. investigation, police obtained a search warrant for Gregory's vehicle and located a knife consistent with the weapon used to kill G.H.
- Police also obtained Gregory's blood sample in connection with the R.S. rape investigation.
- The State matched the DNA from Gregory's blood sample to DNA found at the G.H. murder scene.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Allen Eugene Gregory with aggravated first degree murder in the trial court.
- In 2001, a jury convicted Gregory of aggravated first degree murder and, in a separate penalty phase, sentenced him to death.
- Gregory, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Washington Supreme Court.
- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but reversed the death sentence, citing prosecutorial misconduct and reliance on separate rape convictions that it also reversed.
- The case was remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing proceeding.
- On remand, a new jury was impaneled for a second penalty phase, and it again sentenced Gregory to death.
- Gregory, as appellant, appealed the new death sentence, and the Washington Supreme Court consolidated the appeal with its mandatory statutory review of all death sentences.
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 Washington's death penalty, as administered, violate Article I, Section 14 of the Washington Constitution because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner?
Opinions:
Majority - Fairhurst, C.J.
Yes. Washington's death penalty, as administered, violates Article I, Section 14 of the Washington Constitution because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. The court afforded great weight to a statistical study (the Beckett Report) which demonstrated that black defendants in Washington were four and a half times more likely to be sentenced to death than similarly situated white defendants. This evidence of racial disproportionality, combined with arbitrary application based on factors like the county of the crime, shows the system lacks the fundamental fairness required by the state constitution's prohibition on cruel punishment. Because its application is arbitrary and biased, the death penalty fails to serve any legitimate penological goals, such as retribution or deterrence, rendering it an unconstitutional punishment. The court explicitly based its holding on adequate and independent state constitutional grounds.
Concurring - Johnson, J.
Yes. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion regarding racial bias, this opinion adds that the death penalty is also unconstitutional due to its increasing rarity, randomness, and geographic arbitrariness. A systemic review shows that the death penalty has been abandoned in the vast majority of Washington's counties, meaning the location of a crime, rather than its severity, is often the deciding factor in whether a death sentence is sought. This infrequency, coupled with a high rate of reversal on appeal and excessive delays, demonstrates that the system is unreliable and fails to serve any penological purpose, thus violating the state constitution.
Analysis:
This decision effectively invalidated the death penalty in Washington State, establishing a significant precedent that well-supported statistical evidence of racial bias is sufficient to strike down an entire capital punishment scheme under a state constitution. It reinforces the principle that state courts can interpret their own constitutions to provide greater protections than the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning cruel punishment. Any future legislative attempt to reinstate capital punishment in Washington would face the high bar of demonstrating its new system is immune to the arbitrary and racially biased application identified in this case.
