Tison v. Arizona

Supreme Court of United States
481 U.S. 137 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for a defendant who did not personally kill or intend to kill the victim, but who was a major participant in a felony that resulted in murder and acted with a mental state of reckless indifference to human life.

Facts:

Ricky and Raymond Tison's father, Gary Tison, was a convicted murderer serving a life sentence in an Arizona prison.
The Tison brothers planned and executed an escape for their father and his cellmate, Randy Greenawalt, who was also a convicted murderer.
On July 30, 1978, the brothers entered the prison with an ice chest full of guns, which they used to arm their father and Greenawalt.
After the escape, the group's getaway car suffered a flat tire, leading them to decide to flag down a passing motorist and steal their vehicle.
The brothers helped flag down a car occupied by the Lyons family: John, Donnelda, their 2-year-old son Christopher, and their 15-year-old niece, Theresa Tyson.
The Tison brothers actively participated in kidnapping the family at gunpoint, robbing them, and driving them to a deserted area.
While the brothers were purportedly getting a jug of water for the victims, Gary Tison and Randy Greenawalt shot and killed all four members of the Lyons family.
Ricky and Raymond Tison made no effort to intervene or assist the victims, and instead continued their flight with their father and Greenawalt in the victims' car.

Procedural Posture:

Ricky and Raymond Tison were individually tried and convicted of four counts of capital murder in an Arizona state trial court.
Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court judge sentenced both petitioners to death.
The petitioners appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which affirmed their convictions and sentences.
After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Enmund v. Florida, the petitioners sought post-conviction relief in state court.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied relief, finding that the petitioners' anticipation that lethal force might be used satisfied the Enmund standard, and upheld the death sentences.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Arizona Supreme Court's application of Enmund.

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's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment forbid imposing the death penalty on a defendant who was a major participant in a felony that resulted in murder but who neither killed nor intended to kill the victim?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice O'Connor

No. The Eighth Amendment does not categorically prohibit the death penalty for a defendant whose participation in a felony is major and whose mental state is one of reckless indifference to human life. This case is distinguished from Enmund v. Florida, where the defendant was a minor participant (a getaway driver) with no culpable mental state. The Tison brothers' participation was not minor but 'substantial'; they armed known killers, took part in every element of the kidnapping and robbery, were present during the murders, and made no effort to assist the victims. The court reasoned that a mental state of 'reckless indifference to the value of human life may be every bit as shocking to the moral sense as an ‘intent to kill.’' A survey of state laws indicates a societal consensus that major participants in a violent felony who exhibit such a reckless mental state are among the most culpable, justifying the potential for capital punishment. Therefore, the case is vacated and remanded for the Arizona courts to determine whether the Tisons' mental state met this standard of reckless indifference.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The Eighth Amendment forbids imposing the death penalty on accomplices who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill. The majority opinion creates a new, vague standard of 'reckless indifference' that is inconsistent with the bright-line rule established in Enmund, which required a finding of intent to kill for non-triggermen. The dissent argues the facts do not support a finding of reckless indifference, as the brothers were surprised by the killings and had expressed a desire that no one get hurt. The majority fails to conduct a proper proportionality analysis, which would show that the vast majority of jurisdictions and actual sentencing practices do not support executing individuals who lack the intent to kill. This new standard unconstitutionally blurs the critical distinction between intentional and reckless acts, which is fundamental to assessing moral culpability for the purpose of imposing the ultimate penalty.

Analysis:

This case significantly modifies the rule established in Enmund v. Florida. While Enmund required a finding of 'intent to kill' for a felony-murder accomplice to be eligible for the death penalty, Tison lowers the required mental state to 'reckless indifference to human life' for defendants who are 'major participants' in the underlying felony. This decision expands the class of defendants eligible for capital punishment by creating a new category of culpability between the minor participant in Enmund and the actual killer. The ruling necessitates a more nuanced, fact-intensive inquiry by lower courts into both the defendant's level of participation and their subjective awareness of the risk to human life.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tison v. Arizona (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"