Woodson v. North Carolina
428 U.S. 280 (1976)
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 broad category of homicidal offenses violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Capital sentencing procedures must allow for the particularized consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense.
Facts:
- James Tyrone Woodson, Luby Waxton, Leonard Tucker, and Johnnie Lee Carroll planned to commit an armed robbery of a convenience food store.
- Waxton armed himself with a derringer and Tucker handed Woodson a rifle.
- Tucker and Waxton entered the store, while Woodson and Carroll remained in the car as lookouts.
- Inside the store, Waxton fatally shot the female cashier at point-blank range and took the money tray from the cash register.
- After Tucker and Waxton left the store, a second shot was heard from inside, and a customer was seriously wounded.
- Woodson maintained throughout that he had been coerced by Waxton into participating in the robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- James Tyrone Woodson and Luby Waxton were tried for first-degree murder in a North Carolina trial court.
- A jury found the petitioners guilty on all charges.
- Pursuant to a mandatory North Carolina statute, the trial court sentenced both petitioners to death.
- The petitioners appealed their sentences to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina (the state's highest court) affirmed the death sentences.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
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 makes death a mandatory punishment for all persons convicted of first-degree murder violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
Yes. North Carolina's mandatory death penalty statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The statute is unconstitutional for three reasons: (1) It departs from contemporary standards of decency, as the long history of capital punishment in the United States shows a consistent legislative and jury-based rejection of automatic death sentences in favor of discretion. (2) It fails to remedy the constitutional flaws identified in Furman v. Georgia, as a mandatory scheme simply papers over the problem of unguided jury discretion by encouraging juries to exercise that discretion lawlessly through acquittals or convictions for lesser offenses. (3) It fails to allow for the particularized consideration of the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of the offense, which is a constitutional requirement for inflicting the unique and irreversible penalty of death.
Concurring - Brennan, J.
Yes. Concurring in the judgment for the reasons stated in his dissent in Gregg v. Georgia, the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in all circumstances and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Concurring - Marshall, J.
Yes. Concurring in the judgment for the reasons stated in his dissent in Gregg v. Georgia, the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Dissenting - White, J.
No. The North Carolina statute does not violate the Eighth Amendment. For the reasons stated in his dissent in Roberts v. Louisiana, the mandatory imposition of the death penalty for specified crimes is not unconstitutional, nor does it result in such an arbitrary application as to be void under Furman v. Georgia. The state's choice to enact a mandatory statute in response to Furman is a valid legislative judgment.
Dissenting - Blackmun, J.
No. For the reasons set forth in his dissent in Furman v. Georgia, the death penalty is not unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Rehnquist, J.
No. The plurality's conclusion that mandatory death sentences violate evolving standards of decency is mistaken. The historical trend away from mandatory sentences does not reflect a societal rejection of them for first-degree murder but rather a desire to prevent jury nullification. The requirement for individualized consideration of the defendant is a novel procedural rule imported into the Eighth Amendment without support from precedent, creating a 'freakish' result where North Carolina's system is struck down while others requiring jury discretion are upheld.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, establishing that mandatory death penalty statutes are unconstitutional. Decided the same day as Gregg v. Georgia, which upheld guided discretion statutes, Woodson effectively requires all capital sentencing schemes to be bifurcated. The first phase determines guilt, and the second, penalty phase, requires the sentencer to conduct an individualized inquiry, weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. This holding invalidated the capital punishment laws of numerous states that had responded to Furman by making the death penalty mandatory, forcing them to adopt guided discretion models.
Unlock the full brief for Woodson v. North Carolina