Again, the jury was instructed to consider penry s evidence of mental retardation. Penry is currently before the court on his petition in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus. That principle animated the courts prior holdings that capital defendants have an eighth amendment right to individualized sentencing, including presentation of. We now consider whether the jury instructions at penry s resentencing complied with our mandate in penry i. Contributor names oconnor, sandra day judge supreme court of the united states author. Nor am i at all sure that courts should decide the retroactivity issue if it was not raised below. We now consider whether the jury instructions at penrys resentencing complied with our mandate in penry i. Petitioner was charged with capital murder in texas state court. Johnny paul penry born may 5, 1956 is a texas prisoner serving three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without parole for rape and murder. And at the time, florida law did not consider intellectual disability as a statutory mitigating factor. While that decision was reversed in 2002, the putative ban on executing the mentally disabled in the united states remains very far from a bright line. Oconnor announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court, which was joined in part and dissented to in part by the other justices. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
What was the main outcome of the us supreme court case. Overturns penry v lynaugh executing people with mental disabilities is considered cruel and unusual punishment, but states are allowed to define mental disabilities all states now have a mental retardation statute preventing execution but texas. For essentially the same reasons, we affirm the denial of relief for the petitioner. Syllabus petitioner was charged with capital murder in texas state court. Supreme courts rulings on intellectual disability in capital cases, highlighting the difficulty states have had in devising a workable definition that meets constitutional standards. Boston college third world law journal volume 9issue 2 article 6 611989 challenging the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants. At the time that penry was before the court, two states and the congress had enacted. Lynaugh, director, texas department of corrections. Lynaugh, director, texas department of corrections petitioners claim. Penry s case went twice to the united states supreme court.
Penry, a mentally retarded man, was convicted of rape and murder, for which he was sentenced to death. This decision was the result of a 54 ruling and was regarded as highly controversial. Lynaugh that executing such prisoners did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. After full briefing of the issues,the court of apqeals for the fifth circuit affirmed this courts denial of relief. Laroyce lathair smith of firstdegree murder and determined he should receive a death sentence. Justice oconnor delivered the opinion of the court, except as to part ivc. Lynaugh 1989 found that executing intellectually disabled persons is not cruel and unusual punishment. Also available via the internet from the gpo access web site. After this court held that capital defendants must be. The supreme court has concluded that the jury was not provided with a vehicle for responding to the mitigating evidence of penry s mental retardation and abused background, and the court has ordered that penry be resentenced. In fact, in 2002, the us supreme court ruled in the case of atkins v. Lynaugh, penry contends that in the absence of his requested jury instructions, the texas death penalty statute was applied in an unconstitutional manner by precluding the jury from acting upon the particular mitigating evidence he introduced. He was found competent to stand trial, although a psychologist testified that he was mildly to moderately retarded and had the mental age of a.
The sentencing took place in the interim between our decisions in penry v. Supreme court of the united states year of decision. Supreme court held that the eighth amendment did not preclude the execution of mentally retarded offenders by virtue of their mental retardation alone. In the penalty phase of the bifurcated trial, texas juries must answer yes or. Apr, 2017 moreover, the court ruled that the cruel and unusual clause of the eighth amendment necessitates casebycase consideration. Johnson legal information institute cornell university. That executing mentally retarded criminals is cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. The united states supreme court has ruled on the question of persons with intellectual disability and capital punishment in several notable cases, including penry v.
Virginia that execution of an individual with mental retardation is excessive and violates the eighth amendment. Juvenile offenders and the death penalty in the united states. Lynaugh is a supreme court case from 1989, where the court was asked to determine whether the imposition of the death penalty on a mentally handicapped defendant was cruel and unusual. Lexis 3148 brought to you by free law project, a nonprofit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Lynaugh 1989, the american public, legislators, scholars, and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal. Apa participated as an amicus in that case in a joint brief arguing two principal points. Johnson 2001 found that the jurys instructions regarding mitigating factors were incomplete and that penry. In this case, we must decide whether petitioner, johnny paul penry, was sentenced to death in violation of the eighth amendment because the jury was not instructed that it could consider and give effect to his mitigating evidence in imposing its sentence. In 1989, we held that johnny paul penry had been sentenced to death in violation of the eighth amendment because his jury had not been adequately instructed with respect to mitigating evidence. The consensus reflected in those deliberations informs our answer to the. He was on death row between 1980 and 2008, and his case generated discussion about the appropriateness of the death penalty for offenders who are thought to be intellectually disabled. Lynaugh, the united states supreme court determined that the texas death penalty statute, which it had approved in jurek v. Presumably for these reasons, in the years since we decided penry v.
Audio transcription for oral argument january 11, 1989 in penry v. The court denied the motion for relief from judgment on july 19, 1988. The texas court of criminal appeals affirmed penry s conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied penry s state application for a writ of habeas corpus. In this case, we must decide whether petitioner, johnny paul penry, was sentenced to. I think that sort of definition of deliberate would encompass most of penry s mitigating evidence. Death penalty supreme court cases flashcards quizlet. However, because texas law did not allow the jury to give adequate consideration as a mitigating factor to johnny paul penry s intellectual disability at the sentencing. The state of texas retried penry in 1990, and that jury also found him guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to death. Lynaugh, 492 us 302 1989, penry, a mentally retarded man, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the jury in a texas.
Evaluating intellectual disability after the moore v. The court first addressed this issue in the case of penry v. A reassessment of common law protections for idiots. The state of texas retried penry in 1990 and penry was again convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The following grounds for relief are raised for the first time in kings second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The state of texas retried penry in 1990, and that jury also found him guilty of capital murder and. Petitioner was sentenced to death for capital murder in texas. Impact of federal habeas corpus limitations on death penalty appeals. He was found competent to stand trial, although a psychologist testified that he was mildly to moderately retarded and. The court considers the death penalty and mental capacity. While terminology used to describe those individuals with. Penry held that the application of the death penalty to persons who are mentally retarded but not legally insane does not violate the eighth amendment prohibition against. Challenging the death penalty for mentally retarded. Again, the jury was instructed to consider penrys evidence of mental retardation.
1631 861 1198 172 557 1632 931 1411 504 453 1509 1466 1478 62 70 484 1616 1608 622 1186 970 452 1568 794 274 238 894 519 824 632 1314 370 705 375 128 363 306 1479