johnson
texas
argued
april
decided
june
jury
found
petitioner
johnson
guilty
capital
murder
crime
committed
years
old
conformity
texas
capital
sentencing
statute
effect
trial
instructed
jury
trial
penalty
phase
answer
two
special
issues
whether
johnson
conduct
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
result
whether
probability
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
jury
also
instructed
inter
alia
determining
issues
take
consideration
evidence
submitted
whether
aggravating
mitigating
either
phase
trial
unanimous
jury
answered
yes
special
issues
trial
sentenced
johnson
death
required
law
shortly
state
criminal
appeals
affirmed
conviction
sentence
issued
penry
lynaugh
denying
johnson
motion
rehearing
state
appellate
rejected
contentions
special
issues
allow
jury
give
adequate
mitigating
effect
evidence
youth
penry
required
separate
instruction
question
held
texas
procedures
applied
case
consistent
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
precedents
pp
review
relevant
decisions
demonstrates
constitutional
requirements
regarding
consideration
mitigating
circumstances
sentencers
capital
cases
although
sentencer
precluded
considering
mitigating
factor
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
particular
offense
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
see
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
eddings
oklahoma
free
structure
shape
consideration
mitigating
evidence
effort
achieve
rational
equitable
administration
death
penalty
see
boyde
california
pp
texas
law
johnson
sentenced
principal
concern
series
opinions
although
jurek
texas
six
justices
agreed
general
matter
special
issues
system
satisfied
foregoing
constitutional
requirements
later
held
penry
lynaugh
supra
system
allow
sufficient
consideration
defendant
mitigating
evidence
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
light
particular
circumstances
trial
erred
instructing
jury
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
declining
impose
death
penalty
however
concluded
creating
new
rule
characterized
holding
straightforward
application
jurek
lockett
eddings
making
clear
cases
stand
together
penry
see
confirmed
limited
view
penry
scope
graham
collins
held
defendant
mitigating
evidence
youth
family
background
positive
character
traits
placed
beyond
jury
effective
reach
texas
scheme
pp
texas
special
issues
allowed
adequate
consideration
johnson
youth
reasonable
likelihood
see
boyde
supra
johnson
jury
found
foreclosed
considering
relevant
aspects
youth
since
received
second
special
issue
instruction
told
consider
mitigating
evidence
ample
room
future
dangerousness
assessment
juror
take
account
youth
mitigating
factor
distinguishes
case
penry
supra
second
special
issue
allow
jury
give
mitigating
effect
expert
medical
testimony
defendant
mental
retardation
prevented
learning
experience
since
evidence
logically
considered
within
future
dangerousness
inquiry
aggravating
factor
contrast
youth
ill
effects
subject
change
defendant
ages
result
readily
comprehended
mitigating
factor
consideration
second
special
issue
consideration
comprehensive
inquiry
question
historical
fact
rejects
johnson
related
arguments
second
special
issue
perspective
narrowness
prevented
jury
respectively
taking
account
youth
bore
upon
personal
culpability
making
reasoned
moral
response
evidence
youth
find
constitutional
defect
johnson
sentence
overrule
jurek
requiring
instruction
whenever
defendant
introduced
mitigating
evidence
arguable
relevance
beyond
special
issues
alter
rule
lockett
eddings
require
jury
able
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
every
conceivable
manner
might
relevant
remove
power
structure
consideration
mitigating
evidence
boyde
pp
kennedy
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
scalia
thomas
joined
scalia
post
thomas
post
filed
concurring
opinions
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
stevens
souter
joined
post
michael
tigar
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
robert
owen
jeffrey
pokorak
dana
parker
assistant
attorney
general
texas
argued
cause
respondent
brief
dan
morales
attorney
general
pryor
first
assistant
attorney
general
mary
keller
deputy
attorney
general
michael
hodge
assistant
attorney
general
kent
scheidegger
filed
brief
criminal
justice
legal
foundation
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
second
time
term
consider
constitutional
challenge
former
texas
capital
sentencing
system
like
condemned
prisoner
graham
collins
petitioner
claims
texas
special
issues
system
effect
allow
jury
give
adequate
mitigating
effect
evidence
youth
graham
federal
habeas
corpus
proceeding
petitioner
confront
rule
teague
lane
barring
application
new
rules
law
federal
habeas
corpus
part
relief
sought
graham
required
new
rule
within
meaning
teague
denied
relief
instant
case
comes
us
direct
review
petitioner
conviction
sentence
consider
without
constraints
teague
though
course
customary
respect
doctrine
stare
decisis
based
upon
precedents
including
much
reasoning
graham
find
texas
procedures
applied
case
consistent
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
petitioner
years
age
companion
amanda
miles
decided
rob
allsup
convenience
store
snyder
texas
march
agreeing
witnesses
crime
pair
went
store
survey
layout
particular
determine
number
employees
working
store
evening
found
employee
present
predawn
hours
clerk
jack
huddleston
petitioner
miles
left
store
make
final
plans
returned
allsup
short
time
later
petitioner
handgun
pocket
reentered
store
miles
waiting
customers
leave
petitioner
asked
huddleston
whether
store
orange
juice
one
gallon
plastic
jugs
none
shelves
saying
check
huddleston
went
store
cooler
petitioner
followed
huddleston
told
huddleston
store
robbed
ordered
lie
floor
huddleston
complied
order
placed
hands
behind
head
petitioner
shot
back
neck
killing
petitioner
emerged
cooler
miles
emptied
cash
registers
grabbed
carton
cigarettes
fled
april
weeks
crime
petitioner
arrested
subsequent
robbery
attempted
murder
store
clerk
colorado
city
texas
confessed
murder
jack
huddleston
robbery
allsup
tried
convicted
capital
murder
homicide
qualified
capital
offense
texas
law
petitioner
intentionally
knowingly
caused
huddleston
death
murder
carried
course
committing
robbery
tex
penal
code
ann
jury
determined
petitioner
guilty
capital
murder
separate
punishment
phase
proceedings
conducted
petitioner
sentence
determined
conformity
texas
capital
sentencing
statute
effect
see
crim
proc
art
vernon
trial
instructed
jury
answer
two
special
issues
conduct
defendant
dorsie
lee
johnson
caused
death
deceased
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
deceased
another
result
probability
defendant
dorsie
lee
johnson
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
app
instructed
jury
returns
affirmative
yes
answer
sic
issues
submitted
shall
sentence
defendant
death
jury
returns
negative
answer
issue
submitted
shall
sentence
defendant
life
prison
determining
issues
may
take
consideration
evidence
submitted
trial
case
whether
aggravating
mitigating
nature
evidence
first
part
trial
called
upon
determine
guilt
innocence
defendant
evidence
second
part
trial
wherein
called
upon
determine
answers
special
issues
ibid
anticipation
trial
instructions
state
punishment
phase
proceedings
presented
numerous
witnesses
testified
petitioner
violent
tendencies
serious
evidence
related
april
convenience
store
robbery
colorado
city
witnesses
testified
petitioner
shot
store
clerk
face
resulting
victim
permanent
disfigurement
brain
damage
witnesses
testified
petitioner
fired
two
shots
man
outside
restaurant
snyder
six
days
murder
huddleston
sheriff
deputy
worked
jail
petitioner
held
testified
petitioner
threatened
get
deputy
got
jail
petitioner
acts
violence
limited
strangers
longtime
friend
petitioner
beverly
johnson
testified
early
petitioner
hit
thrown
large
rock
head
pointed
gun
several
occasions
petitioner
girlfriend
paula
williams
reported
petitioner
become
angry
one
afternoon
threatened
axe
incidents
less
gravity
one
petitioner
classmates
testified
petitioner
cut
piece
glass
seventh
grade
another
classmate
testified
petitioner
also
cut
glass
year
later
additional
evidence
presented
petitioner
stabbed
third
classmate
pencil
state
established
crimes
committed
petitioner
first
experience
criminal
justice
system
petitioner
convicted
store
burglary
waco
texas
petitioner
twice
violated
terms
probation
offense
smoking
marijuana
petitioner
still
probation
committed
huddleston
murder
defense
presented
petitioner
father
dorsie
johnson
witness
elder
johnson
attributed
son
criminal
activities
drug
use
youth
asked
defense
counsel
whether
son
age
real
mature
person
petitioner
father
answered
age
nineteen
sir
also
find
foolish
age
foolish
age
tend
want
macho
trying
step
manhood
say
still
think
kid
eighteen
nineteen
years
old
undeveloped
mind
undeveloped
sense
assembling
say
right
wrong
evaluation
much
know
might
well
evaluate
worth
worth
like
like
thirty
year
old
man
take
consideration
lot
things
younger
person
age
voir
dire
phase
proceedings
prospective
jurors
questioned
course
days
petitioner
counsel
asked
venirepersons
whether
believed
people
capable
change
whether
venirepersons
ever
done
things
youths
see
tr
voir
dire
scurry
county
tex
pp
juror
swigert
juror
freeman
juror
witte
juror
raborn
petitioner
counsel
returned
theme
closing
argument
question
real
question
think
whether
believe
possibility
change
remember
one
thing
every
one
told
agreed
every
one
agreed
people
change
agree
people
change
means
dorsie
change
takes
question
two
regarding
future
dangerousness
realm
probability
possibility
see
change
longer
probable
things
possible
things
see
people
change
say
know
people
change
say
probably
every
one
knows
heart
mind
people
people
change
dorsie
johnson
change
therefore
answer
question
two
app
jury
instructed
state
bore
burden
proving
special
issue
beyond
reasonable
doubt
unanimous
jury
found
answer
special
issues
yes
trial
sentenced
petitioner
death
required
law
art
vernon
appeal
texas
criminal
appeals
affirmed
conviction
sentence
rejecting
petitioner
seven
allegations
error
none
involved
challenge
jury
instructions
five
days
state
ruling
issued
opinion
penry
lynaugh
petitioner
filed
motion
rehearing
texas
criminal
appeals
arguing
among
points
special
issues
allow
adequate
consideration
youth
citing
penry
petitioner
claimed
separate
instruction
given
allowed
jury
consider
petitioner
age
mitigating
factor
although
petitioner
requested
instruction
trial
argued
point
prior
rehearing
stage
appeal
procedural
bar
interposed
instead
criminal
appeals
considered
argument
merits
rejected
noting
already
indicated
lackey
state
youth
relevant
jury
consideration
second
special
issue
reasoned
juror
believed
petitioner
violent
actions
result
youth
juror
naturally
believe
petitioner
cease
behave
violently
grew
older
app
concluded
jury
able
express
reasoned
moral
response
petitioner
mitigating
evidence
within
scope
art
instructions
given
trial
petitioner
filed
petition
certiorari
granted
ii
latest
series
decisions
explained
requirements
imposed
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
regarding
consideration
mitigating
circumstances
sentencers
capital
cases
earliest
case
decisional
line
furman
georgia
time
furman
sentencing
juries
almost
complete
discretion
determining
whether
given
defendant
sentenced
death
resulting
system
meaningful
basis
distinguishing
cases
death
imposed
many
cases
white
concurring
although
two
justices
agree
single
rationale
majority
furman
concluded
system
cruel
unusual
within
meaning
eighth
amendment
guiding
principle
emerged
furman
required
channel
discretion
sentencing
juries
order
avoid
system
death
penalty
imposed
wanto
freakis
manner
stewart
concurring
four
terms
furman
decided
five
cases
opinions
issued
day
concerning
constitutionality
various
capital
sentencing
systems
gregg
georgia
proffitt
florida
jurek
texas
woodson
north
carolina
roberts
louisiana
wake
furman
least
abandoned
sentencing
schemes
vested
complete
discretion
juries
favor
systems
either
specif
ied
factors
weighed
procedures
followed
deciding
impose
capital
sentence
ii
de
death
penalty
mandatory
certain
crimes
gregg
supra
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
five
cases
controlling
joint
opinion
three
justices
reaffirmed
principle
furman
discretion
must
suitably
directed
limited
minimize
risk
wholly
arbitrary
capricious
action
accord
proffitt
supra
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
based
upon
principle
might
thought
statutes
mandating
imposition
death
penalty
defendant
found
guilty
certain
crimes
consistent
constitution
joint
opinions
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
indicated
second
principle
tension
first
considered
assessing
constitutionality
capital
sentencing
scheme
according
three
justices
consideration
character
record
individual
offender
circumstances
particular
offense
constitutionally
indispensable
part
process
inflicting
penalty
death
woodson
supra
plurality
opinion
accord
gregg
supra
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
jurek
supra
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
roberts
supra
plurality
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
based
upon
second
principle
struck
mandatory
imposition
death
penalty
specified
crimes
inconsistent
requirements
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
see
woodson
supra
roberts
supra
two
terms
later
plurality
lockett
ohio
refined
requirements
related
consideration
mitigating
evidence
capital
sentencer
unlike
mandatory
schemes
struck
woodson
roberts
mitigating
evidence
excluded
ohio
system
issue
lockett
permitted
limited
range
mitigating
circumstances
considered
sentencer
plurality
nonetheless
found
system
unconstitutional
holding
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
require
sentencer
precluded
considering
mitigating
factor
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
majority
adopted
lockett
rule
eddings
oklahoma
accord
hitchcock
dugger
skipper
south
carolina
altered
rule
central
requirement
lockett
progeny
stand
proposition
state
may
cut
absolute
manner
presentation
mitigating
evidence
either
statute
judicial
instruction
limiting
inquiries
relevant
severely
evidence
never
part
sentencing
decision
mckoy
north
carolina
kennedy
concurring
judgment
see
also
graham
saffle
parks
although
lockett
eddings
prevent
state
placing
relevant
mitigating
evidence
beyond
effective
reach
sentencer
graham
collins
supra
cases
others
decisional
line
bar
state
guiding
sentencer
consideration
mitigating
evidence
indeed
held
constitutional
requirement
unfettered
sentencing
discretion
jury
free
structure
shape
consideration
mitigating
evidence
effort
achieve
rational
equitable
administration
death
penalty
boyde
california
quoting
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
see
also
saffle
supra
texas
law
petitioner
sentenced
principal
concern
four
previous
opinions
see
jurek
texas
franklin
lynaugh
supra
penry
lynaugh
graham
supra
mentioned
jurek
included
group
five
cases
addressing
statutes
jurek
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
first
noted
constitutional
deficiency
means
used
narrow
group
offenders
subject
capital
punishment
statute
adopted
five
different
classifications
murder
purpose
see
jurek
turning
mitigation
side
sentencing
system
three
justices
said
constitutionality
texas
procedures
turns
whether
enumerated
special
issues
allow
consideration
particularized
mitigating
factors
assessing
constitutionality
mitigation
side
scheme
three
justices
examined
detail
second
special
issue
asks
whether
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
although
statute
define
terms
joint
opinion
noted
texas
criminal
appeals
indicated
interpret
question
manner
allowed
defendant
bring
relevant
mitigating
evidence
jury
attention
determining
likelihood
defendant
continuing
threat
society
jury
consider
whether
defendant
significant
criminal
record
consider
range
severity
prior
criminal
conduct
look
age
defendant
whether
time
commission
offense
acting
duress
domination
another
also
consider
whether
defendant
extreme
form
mental
emotional
pressure
something
less
perhaps
insanity
emotions
average
man
however
inflamed
withstand
jurek
state
app
next
considered
constitutional
challenge
involving
texas
special
issues
franklin
lynaugh
supra
although
defendant
case
recognized
upheld
constitutionality
texas
system
general
matter
jurek
claimed
special
issues
allow
jury
give
adequate
weight
mitigating
evidence
concerning
good
prison
disciplinary
record
jury
therefore
instructed
consider
mitigating
evidence
independent
special
issues
plurality
rejected
defendant
claim
holding
second
special
issue
provided
adequate
vehicle
consideration
defendant
prison
record
bore
character
plurality
also
noted
jurek
foreclosed
defendant
argument
jury
still
entitled
cast
independent
vote
death
penalty
even
answered
yes
special
issues
plurality
concluded
special
issues
system
texas
guided
jury
consideration
mitigating
evidence
still
providing
sufficient
jury
discretion
see
although
justice
expressed
reservations
texas
scheme
cases
agreed
special
issues
inhibited
jury
consideration
defendant
mitigating
evidence
case
see
opinion
concurring
judgment
third
case
considered
texas
statute
pivotal
one
petitioner
point
view
set
aside
capital
sentence
texas
special
issues
allow
sufficient
consideration
defendant
mitigating
evidence
penry
lynaugh
supra
penry
condemned
prisoner
presented
mitigating
evidence
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
agreed
jury
instructions
limited
appropriate
consideration
mitigating
evidence
light
penry
particular
circumstances
noted
jury
never
instructed
consider
evidence
offered
penry
mitigating
evidence
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
imposing
sentence
absent
definition
term
deliberately
sure
jury
able
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
answering
first
special
issue
turned
second
special
issue
future
dangerousness
evidence
case
suggested
penry
mental
retardation
rendered
unable
learn
mistakes
consequence
decided
mitigating
evidence
relevant
second
special
issue
aggravating
factor
suggests
yes
answer
question
future
dangerousness
ibid
concluded
trial
erred
instructing
jury
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
penry
mental
retardation
abused
background
declining
impose
death
penalty
explicit
rejecting
dissent
concern
penry
seeking
new
rule
contravention
teague
lane
indeed
characterized
holding
penry
straightforward
application
earlier
rulings
jurek
lockett
eddings
making
clear
cases
stand
together
penry
see
penry
confirmed
limited
view
penry
scope
graham
collins
confronted
claim
defendant
texas
system
allowed
adequate
consideration
mitigating
evidence
concerning
youth
family
background
positive
character
traits
rejecting
contention
penry
dictated
ruling
defendant
favor
stated
penry
effec
sea
change
view
constitutionality
former
texas
death
penalty
statute
noted
contrary
view
penry
inconsistent
penry
conclusion
creating
new
rule
also
accept
view
lockett
eddings
line
cases
upon
penry
rested
compelled
holding
defendant
graham
cases
constitutional
defect
lay
fact
relevant
mitigating
evidence
placed
beyond
effective
reach
sentencer
lockett
eddings
skipper
hitchcock
sentencer
precluded
even
considering
certain
types
mitigating
evidence
penry
defendant
evidence
placed
sentencer
sentencer
reliable
means
giving
mitigating
effect
evidence
case
however
graham
mitigating
evidence
placed
beyond
jury
effective
reach
graham
iii
today
asked
take
step
new
rule
taken
graham
like
graham
petitioner
contends
texas
sentencing
system
allow
jury
give
adequate
mitigating
effect
evidence
youth
unlike
graham
petitioner
comes
direct
review
teague
presents
bar
rule
seeks
force
stare
decisis
though
rests
considerations
parallel
many
respects
teague
applicable
interests
state
texas
victims
whose
rights
must
vindicate
turned
aside
state
relies
upon
interpretation
eighth
amendment
approved
absent
demonstration
earlier
cases
misinterpretation
constitutional
command
see
vasquez
hillery
arizona
rumsey
dispute
defendant
youth
relevant
mitigating
circumstance
must
within
effective
reach
capital
sentencing
jury
death
sentence
meet
requirements
lockett
eddings
see
sumner
shuman
eddings
lockett
plurality
opinion
cases
recognize
youth
chronological
fact
time
condition
life
person
may
susceptible
influence
psychological
damage
eddings
supra
lack
maturity
underdeveloped
sense
responsibility
found
youth
often
adults
understandable
among
young
qualities
often
result
impetuous
actions
decisions
sentencer
capital
case
must
allowed
consider
mitigating
qualities
youth
course
deliberations
appropriate
sentence
question
presented
whether
texas
special
issues
allowed
adequate
consideration
petitioner
youth
argument
youth
never
given
proper
mitigating
force
texas
scheme
inconsistent
holdings
jurek
graham
penry
standard
assess
whether
jury
instructions
satisfy
rule
lockett
eddings
set
forth
boyde
california
held
reviewing
must
determine
whether
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
although
reasonable
likelihood
standard
require
defendant
prove
likely
jury
prevented
giving
effect
evidence
standard
requires
mere
possibility
bar
ibid
evaluating
instructions
engage
technical
parsing
language
instructions
instead
approach
instructions
way
jury
common
sense
understanding
instructions
light
taken
place
trial
decide
reasonable
likelihood
jury
found
foreclosed
considering
relevant
aspects
petitioner
youth
pursuant
second
special
issue
jury
instructed
decide
whether
probability
petitioner
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
app
jury
also
told
answering
special
issues
consider
mitigating
evidence
presented
guilt
punishment
phases
petitioner
trial
even
cold
record
one
unmoved
testimony
petitioner
father
urging
son
actions
due
large
part
youth
strains
credulity
suppose
jury
viewed
evidence
petitioner
youth
outside
effective
reach
answering
second
special
issue
relevance
youth
mitigating
factor
derives
fact
signature
qualities
youth
transient
individuals
mature
impetuousness
recklessness
may
dominate
younger
years
subside
believe
ample
room
assessment
future
dangerousness
juror
take
account
difficulties
youth
mitigating
force
sentencing
determination
recognized
graham
fact
juror
might
view
evidence
youth
aggravating
opposed
mitigating
mean
rule
lockett
violated
graham
long
mitigating
evidence
within
effective
reach
sentencer
requirements
eighth
amendment
satisfied
ibid
jury
meaningful
basis
consider
relevant
mitigating
qualities
petitioner
youth
distinguishes
case
penry
penry
expert
medical
testimony
defendant
mentally
retarded
condition
prevented
learning
experience
although
evidence
mental
illness
fell
short
providing
penry
defense
prosecution
crimes
held
second
special
issue
allow
jury
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
penry
condition
left
unable
learn
mistakes
reasoned
logical
manner
evidence
mental
retardation
considered
within
future
dangerousness
inquiry
aggravating
factor
penry
remains
law
must
given
fair
reading
evidence
petitioner
youth
however
falls
outside
penry
ambit
unlike
penry
mental
retardation
rendered
unable
learn
mistakes
ill
effects
youth
defendant
may
experience
subject
change
result
readily
comprehended
mitigating
factor
consideration
second
special
issue
petitioner
contest
evidence
youth
given
effect
second
special
issue
instead
petitioner
argues
perspective
future
dangerousness
inquiry
allow
jury
take
account
petitioner
youth
bore
upon
personal
culpability
murder
committed
according
petitioner
prediction
future
behavior
thing
assessment
moral
culpability
crime
already
committed
brief
petitioner
contrary
petitioner
suggestion
however
forwardlooking
inquiry
independent
assessment
personal
culpability
logical
fair
jury
make
determination
defendant
future
dangerousness
asking
extent
youth
influenced
defendant
conduct
see
skipper
consideration
defendant
past
conduct
indicative
probable
future
behavior
inevitable
undesirable
element
criminal
sentencing
jurors
believed
transient
qualities
petitioner
youth
made
less
culpable
murder
reasonable
likelihood
jurors
deemed
foreclosed
considering
evaluating
petitioner
future
dangerousness
true
texas
structured
consideration
relevant
qualities
petitioner
youth
state
still
allow
jury
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
making
sentencing
decision
saffle
although
texas
might
provided
vehicles
consideration
petitioner
youth
additional
instruction
beyond
given
future
dangerousness
required
order
jury
able
consider
mitigating
qualities
youth
presented
related
argument
petitioner
quoting
portion
decision
penry
supra
claims
jurors
able
make
reasoned
moral
response
evidence
petitioner
youth
second
special
issue
called
narrow
factual
inquiry
future
dangerousness
however
previously
interpreted
texas
special
issues
system
requiring
jurors
exercise
range
judgment
discretion
adams
texas
view
accords
commonsense
understanding
jurors
likely
view
instructions
implement
charge
entitled
consider
mitigating
evidence
trial
sentencing
phases
boyde
crucial
term
employed
second
special
issue
continuing
threat
society
affords
jury
room
independent
judgment
reaching
decision
indeed
forget
texas
capital
jury
deliberating
special
issues
aware
consequences
answers
likely
weigh
mitigating
evidence
formulates
answers
manner
similar
employed
capital
juries
pure
balancing
franklin
plurality
opinion
blystone
pennsylvania
four
members
dissent
used
texas
statute
example
capital
sentencing
system
permitted
exercise
judgment
opinion
stated
two
special
issues
require
jury
find
facts
supporting
legislatively
defined
aggravating
circumstance
instead
focusing
deliberateness
defendant
actions
future
dangerousness
questions
compel
jury
make
moral
judgment
severity
crime
defendant
culpability
texas
statute
directs
imposition
death
penalty
jury
decided
defendant
actions
sufficiently
egregious
warrant
death
brennan
dissenting
might
juror
basis
solely
sympathy
mercy
opted
death
penalty
vehicle
texas
special
issues
scheme
construed
lockett
line
cases
mean
jury
must
able
dispense
mercy
basis
sympathetic
response
defendant
indeed
said
difficult
reconcile
rule
allowing
fate
defendant
turn
vagaries
particular
jurors
emotional
sensitivities
longstanding
recognition
capital
sentencing
must
reliable
accurate
nonarbitrary
saffle
parks
see
also
california
brown
permitting
instruction
jury
base
sentencing
decision
sympathy
us
find
constitutional
defect
petitioner
death
sentence
alter
significant
fashion
capital
sentencing
jurisprudence
first
casualty
holding
petitioner
favor
jurek
inevitable
consequence
petitioner
argument
texas
special
issues
system
almost
every
case
supplemented
instruction
said
graham
olding
defendant
entitled
special
instructions
whenever
offer
mitigating
evidence
arguable
relevance
beyond
special
issues
require
cases
fourth
special
issue
put
jury
mitigating
evidence
whether
relevant
three
questions
lead
believe
death
penalty
imposed
graham
quoting
franklin
supra
fundamental
flaw
petitioner
position
failure
recognize
simple
logical
difference
rules
govern
factors
jury
must
permitted
consider
making
sentencing
decision
rules
govern
state
may
guide
jury
considering
weighing
factors
reaching
decision
saffle
supra
rule
petitioner
favor
require
jury
instructed
manner
leaves
free
depart
special
issues
every
case
course
remove
power
part
structure
consideration
mitigating
evidence
result
consistent
rejecting
see
boyde
saffle
supra
franklin
supra
plurality
opinion
reconciliation
competing
principles
function
law
capital
sentencing
jurisprudence
seeks
reconcile
two
competing
valid
principles
furman
allow
mitigating
evidence
considered
guide
discretion
sentencer
holding
jurek
reflected
understanding
texas
sentencing
scheme
accommodates
concerns
franklin
supra
plurality
opinion
special
issues
structure
regard
satisfies
eighth
amendment
precedents
interpret
force
constitutional
infirmity
application
judgment
texas
criminal
appeals
affirmed
ordered
footnotes
statute
also
required
third
special
issue
asking
whether
defendant
act
unreasonable
response
provocation
deceased
submitted
jury
raised
evidence
art
vernon
petitioner
contest
trial
decision
submit
third
special
issue
case
colloquy
point
petitioner
counsel
juror
raborn
illustrative
discussions
jurors
okay
feel
let
ask
feel
person
young
person
things
later
years
thirty
forty
believe
believe
people
change
yes
believe
known
think
way
person
acts
present
past
acted
past
absolute
indicator
future
thirty
forty
years
road
line
like
say
change
tr
voir
dire
ohio
defendant
found
guilty
aggravated
murder
involving
least
one
seven
aggravating
circumstances
judge
required
sentence
defendant
death
unless
least
one
three
mitigating
circumstances
present
victim
induced
facilitated
offense
unlikely
crime
committed
fact
defendant
acting
duress
coercion
strong
provocation
offense
primarily
product
defendant
psychosis
mental
deficiency
see
lockett
justice
scalia
concurring
view
principle
sentencer
must
allowed
consider
relevant
mitigating
evidence
quite
incompatible
furman
principle
sentencer
discretion
must
channeled
see
walton
arizona
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
continue
true
unless
sort
channeling
mitigating
discretion
texas
engaged
merely
permitted
today
holds
positively
required
elaboration
intricate
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
neither
look
forward
support
today
decision
however
simply
clarification
think
plainly
correct
one
opinions
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
boyde
california
joined
fact
essence
today
holding
effect
discretion
may
constitutionally
channeled
set
forth
dissent
penry
lynaugh
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
accordingly
join
opinion
justice
thomas
concurring
although
penry
lynaugh
remains
law
ante
sense
expressly
overruled
adhere
view
wrongly
decided
graham
collins
thomas
concurring
also
continue
believe
substantially
narrowed
later
opinions
petitioner
youth
mitigating
relevance
second
special
issue
however
case
readily
distinguishable
penry
compel
reconsideration
therefore
join
opinion
justice
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
justice
souter
join
dissenting
dorsie
lee
johnson
years
old
committed
murder
led
death
sentence
today
upholds
sentence
even
though
jurors
considered
johnson
case
allowed
give
full
effect
strongest
mitigating
evidence
youth
reaches
result
invoking
highly
selective
version
stare
decisis
misapplying
habeas
precedents
case
direct
review
therefore
respectfully
dissent
accounts
dorsie
johnson
model
youth
adolescent
frequently
missed
school
attend
often
disruptive
drinking
using
drugs
time
habits
intensified
time
johnson
father
testified
deaths
johnson
mother
sister
affected
johnson
deeply
primarily
attributed
johnson
behavior
drug
use
youth
jury
hearing
evidence
easily
conclude
johnson
jury
answer
second
texas
special
question
whether
probable
johnson
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
art
vernon
yes
possible
jury
thought
johnson
might
outgrow
temper
violent
behavior
matured
likely
jury
considered
pattern
escalating
violence
indication
johnson
become
even
dangerous
grew
older
even
jurors
viewed
johnson
youth
transient
circumstance
dangerousness
associated
youth
dissipate
sometime
future
reasonably
likely
jurors
still
understood
second
question
require
affirmative
answer
see
graham
collins
souter
dissenting
thus
extent
johnson
youth
relevant
second
texas
special
issue
reasonable
likelihood
aggravating
factor
even
jury
give
mitigating
effect
youth
second
special
issue
constitution
still
require
additional
instruction
case
additional
instruction
required
one
special
issues
former
texas
scheme
see
art
allows
jury
give
effect
relevant
mitigating
aspect
youth
relation
defendant
culpability
crime
committed
skipper
south
carolina
violent
troubled
young
person
may
may
grow
violent
troubled
adult
happens
future
unrelated
culpability
defendant
time
committed
crime
jury
conclude
young
person
acted
deliberately
art
dangerous
future
art
yet
still
believe
less
culpable
youth
adult
thought
made
clear
eddings
oklahoma
vicissitudes
youth
bear
directly
young
offender
culpability
responsibility
crime
outh
chronological
fact
time
condition
life
person
may
susceptible
influence
psychological
damage
history
replete
laws
judicial
recognition
minors
especially
earlier
years
generally
less
mature
responsible
adults
particularly
formative
years
childhood
adolescence
minors
often
lack
experience
perspective
judgment
expected
adults
footnotes
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
ii
graham
collins
supra
held
relief
johnson
seeks
today
dictated
precedent
therefore
available
collateral
review
quoting
teague
lane
plurality
opinion
issue
graham
whether
additional
instruction
allow
jury
give
full
effect
graham
youth
constitutionally
mandated
whether
need
instruction
susceptible
debate
among
reasonable
minds
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
agree
conclusion
graham
see
souter
dissenting
even
find
graham
controlling
today
teague
lane
supra
rule
collateral
review
new
constitutional
rules
applied
retroactively
invalidate
final
state
convictions
federal
habeas
review
teague
analysis
threshold
issue
see
plurality
opinion
however
cases
reject
claim
requiring
new
rule
constitute
stare
decisis
direct
review
purpose
teague
accommodate
competing
demands
constitutional
imperatives
principle
finality
essential
operation
criminal
justice
system
see
desist
harlan
dissenting
finality
concerns
teague
come
play
denied
certiorari
time
filing
petition
certiorari
judgment
affirming
conviction
expired
see
griffith
kentucky
time
interests
finality
comity
caused
us
implement
teague
standards
retroactivity
issue
demands
need
indeed
must
concern
constitution
direct
review
constitutionally
imposed
duty
resolve
cases
us
light
best
understanding
governing
constitutional
principles
mackey
harlan
concurring
judgment
without
regard
reliance
interests
state
analysis
collateral
review
doctrine
well
purpose
makes
majority
emphasis
cases
decided
teague
inappropriate
direct
review
case
determining
whether
rule
new
ask
whether
fairly
discerned
precedents
even
ask
reasonable
jurists
discerned
precedents
ask
whether
result
dictated
past
cases
whether
susceptible
debate
among
reasonable
minds
butler
mckellar
recognized
answering
question
difficult
especially
faced
application
settled
law
new
facts
rule
petitioner
sought
graham
new
rule
one
never
squarely
held
former
texas
special
issues
required
additional
instruction
regarding
youth
addressed
particular
combination
circumstances
direct
review
today
however
create
insurmountable
reliance
interest
state
texas
suggests
see
ante
allow
failure
address
issue
create
interest
elevate
practice
letting
issues
percolate
interests
federalism
responsibility
resolve
emerging
constitutional
issues
direct
review
question
constitution
read
light
precedents
requires
view
eighth
amendment
requires
additional
instruction
case
iii
considerable
support
early
cases
proposition
sentencer
capital
case
must
able
give
full
effect
mitigating
evidence
concerning
defendant
character
record
circumstances
crime
first
recognized
need
give
effect
mitigating
circumstances
group
capital
cases
decided
furman
georgia
three
cases
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
upheld
capital
sentencing
laws
facial
challenges
large
part
believed
statutes
narrowed
category
defendants
subject
death
penalty
time
allowed
consideration
mitigating
circumstances
regarding
individual
defendant
particular
crime
see
gregg
georgia
joint
opinion
proffitt
florida
joint
opinion
jurek
texas
joint
opinion
two
cases
joint
opinions
found
mandatory
death
penalty
statutes
unconstitutional
see
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
roberts
louisiana
plurality
opinion
mandatory
death
penalty
certainly
limited
discretion
sentencer
consistent
constitution
ante
plurality
opinion
woodson
recognized
allowing
sentencer
consider
give
effect
mitigating
circumstances
result
arbitrary
capricious
jury
nullification
prevailed
prior
furman
see
woodson
furthermore
process
accords
significance
relevant
facets
character
record
individual
offender
circumstances
particular
offense
excludes
consideration
fixing
ultimate
punishment
death
possibility
compassionate
mitigating
factors
stemming
diverse
frailties
humankind
returned
issue
mitigating
circumstances
two
terms
later
ohio
death
penalty
statute
required
sentencer
impose
death
penalty
defendant
unless
one
three
mitigating
circumstances
established
preponderance
evidence
see
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
determining
existence
three
circumstances
sentencer
consider
nature
circumstances
offense
history
character
condition
offender
quoting
ohio
rev
code
ann
ohio
held
mitigating
circumstances
construed
liberally
plurality
nevertheless
found
statute
narrow
pass
constitutional
muster
lockett
plurality
concluded
cases
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
require
sentencer
rarest
kind
capital
case
precluded
considering
mitigating
factor
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
omitted
statute
issue
specifically
directed
sentencer
consider
factors
nevertheless
plurality
found
statute
unconstitutional
provided
method
consideration
affect
sentencing
decision
accord
bell
ohio
petitioner
counsel
offered
wide
range
mitigating
evidence
penalty
phase
according
ohio
statute
sentencer
consider
evidence
petitioner
death
sentence
reversed
nevertheless
statute
unconstitutionally
limited
consideration
evidence
mitigating
factors
next
addressed
constitutional
requirement
sentencer
allowed
give
full
consideration
full
effect
mitigating
circumstances
eddings
oklahoma
although
oklahoma
death
penalty
statute
contained
specific
restrictions
types
mitigating
evidence
considered
neither
oklahoma
trial
criminal
appeals
believed
consider
mitigating
factors
evidence
petitioner
unhappy
upbringing
emotional
disturbance
see
reversed
petitioner
death
sentence
reaffirmed
rule
lockett
sentencer
capital
case
must
permitted
consider
relevant
mitigating
factors
ways
affect
sentencing
decision
rule
explained
accommodated
twin
objectives
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
measured
consistent
application
fairness
accused
four
years
later
made
plain
lockett
eddings
meant
said
skipper
south
carolina
reiterated
evidence
even
relate
specifically
petitioner
culpability
crime
committed
must
treated
relevant
mitigating
evidence
serves
basis
sentence
less
death
quoting
lockett
supra
summarized
constitutionally
permissible
range
discretion
imposing
death
penalty
following
term
mccleskey
kemp
first
required
threshold
death
penalty
imposed
context
state
must
establish
rational
criteria
narrow
decisionmaker
judgment
whether
circumstances
particular
defendant
case
meet
threshold
second
limit
sentencer
consideration
relevant
circumstance
cause
decline
impose
penalty
respect
state
channel
sentencer
discretion
must
allow
consider
relevant
information
offered
defendant
emphases
added
despite
long
line
precedent
supporting
johnson
argument
state
impermissibly
limited
effect
given
youth
like
respondent
texas
criminal
appeals
clings
doggedly
jurek
texas
joint
opinion
interpretation
today
relies
however
nothing
actually
decided
jurek
jurek
one
five
cases
evaluated
attempts
furman
enact
constitutional
death
penalty
statutes
statutes
issue
applied
limited
number
times
necessity
challenges
facial
texas
criminal
appeals
example
examined
application
texas
statute
twice
jurek
one
case
posture
case
limited
history
statute
application
determine
statute
constitutionality
circumstances
instead
joint
opinion
contained
narrowest
ground
decision
case
read
texas
interpretation
statute
allowing
jury
consider
particularized
circumstances
individual
offense
individual
offender
death
imposed
therefore
joint
opinion
held
statute
fell
within
later
called
constitutionally
permissible
range
discretion
imposing
death
penalty
mccleskey
kemp
supra
jurek
supra
jurek
involved
facial
challenge
texas
statute
constitutionality
statute
implemented
particular
instances
issue
constitutionality
statute
implicated
cases
franklin
lynaugh
adams
texas
example
still
expressed
view
statute
allowed
members
jury
consider
relevant
evidence
use
evidence
answering
special
questions
remaining
true
instructions
oaths
true
plurality
opinion
lockett
stated
joint
opinion
jurek
approved
texas
statute
concluded
texas
criminal
appeals
broadly
interpreted
second
question
despite
facial
narrowness
addressed
first
challenge
texas
death
penalty
statute
franklin
clear
statements
jurek
regarding
statute
constitutionality
conditioned
particular
understanding
state
law
jurek
simply
upheld
texas
death
penalty
statute
circumstances
fact
five
members
rejected
franklin
plurality
reliance
jurek
disagreed
plurality
suggestion
state
constitutionally
limit
ability
sentencing
authority
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
relevant
defendant
character
background
circumstances
offense
joined
blackmun
concurring
judgment
emphasis
added
stevens
joined
brennan
marshall
dissenting
see
also
penry
lynaugh
oth
concurrence
dissent
franklin
understood
jurek
resting
fundamentally
express
assurance
special
issues
permit
jury
fully
consider
mitigating
evidence
defendant
introduced
view
five
concurring
dissenting
justices
facial
review
jurek
decide
issue
presented
franklin
surprising
day
approved
texas
death
penalty
statute
jurek
also
approved
death
penalty
statutes
georgia
florida
see
gregg
georgia
joint
opinion
proffitt
florida
joint
opinion
yet
gregg
proffitt
prior
franklin
held
unconstitutional
specific
applications
georgia
florida
statutes
earlier
approved
see
godfrey
georgia
vague
overly
broad
construction
aggravating
factor
rendered
death
sentence
unconstitutional
hitchcock
dugger
supra
holding
unconstitutional
restrict
jury
consideration
mitigating
factors
enumerated
statute
despite
majority
view
jurek
texas
death
penalty
statute
today
relies
minority
view
franklin
goes
far
note
approval
minority
position
jurek
foreclosed
defendant
argument
jury
still
entitled
cast
independent
vote
death
penalty
even
answered
yes
special
issues
ante
citing
franklin
supra
reading
franklin
turns
stare
decisis
head
although
majority
justices
franklin
accept
contention
state
constitutionally
limit
sentencer
ability
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
two
justices
concurred
judgment
believed
facts
case
state
limited
effect
evidence
given
joined
blackmun
concurring
judgment
thus
resolution
issue
left
open
following
term
however
squarely
addressed
constitutionality
limiting
effect
texas
jury
give
relevant
mitigating
evidence
contrary
majority
opinion
today
plainly
held
texas
special
issues
violated
eighth
amendment
extent
prevented
jury
giving
full
consideration
effect
defendant
relevant
mitigating
evidence
penry
lynaugh
penry
way
limited
evidence
aggravating
future
dangerousness
issue
stated
eddings
makes
clear
enough
simply
allow
defendant
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencer
sentencer
must
also
able
consider
give
effect
evidence
imposing
sentence
meant
full
effect
evident
remainder
discussion
first
determined
penry
evidence
mental
retardation
abused
childhood
relevant
question
whether
acted
deliberately
first
special
issue
relevance
issue
sufficient
problem
today
suggests
see
ante
simply
jury
instruction
defined
term
deliberately
instead
noted
jury
must
able
give
effect
evidence
related
penry
ersonal
culpability
solely
function
defendant
capacity
act
deliberately
jury
give
full
effect
penry
evidence
first
special
issue
deliberately
defined
way
clearly
direct
jury
consider
fully
penry
mitigating
evidence
bears
personal
culpability
emphasis
added
evidence
relevance
beyond
scope
first
issue
concluded
second
special
issue
like
first
allow
jury
give
effect
mitigating
aspect
mental
retardation
diminution
culpability
today
makes
much
finding
relevance
penry
evidence
second
issue
aggravating
factor
see
ante
takes
factual
description
penry
evidence
sword
context
second
special
issue
inadequate
evidence
worked
penry
inadequate
allow
jury
give
full
effect
penry
mitigating
evidence
penry
discussion
third
special
issue
whether
defendant
conduct
unreasonable
response
provocation
also
focused
inability
juror
express
view
penry
lacked
moral
culpability
sentenced
death
answering
question
point
penry
clear
death
sentence
resulting
application
texas
special
issues
upheld
unless
jurors
able
consider
fully
defendant
mitigating
evidence
accord
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
today
holds
constitutionality
turns
whether
special
questions
allow
mitigating
factors
considered
also
given
effect
possible
ways
including
ways
questions
recent
cases
contrary
boyde
california
example
relied
two
straightforward
propositions
reject
petitioner
claim
california
death
penalty
unconstitutional
first
rejected
argument
requiring
jury
weigh
aggravating
mitigating
factors
sentence
petitioner
accordingly
violated
requirement
individualized
sentencing
petitioner
boyde
allege
instruction
interfered
jury
consideration
mitigating
evidence
instead
essentially
argued
constitutional
right
instruction
jury
nullification
see
also
addressed
rejected
petitioner
challenge
catchall
instruction
told
jury
consider
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
reiterated
longtime
understanding
eighth
amendment
requires
jury
able
consider
give
effect
relevant
mitigating
evidence
offered
petitioner
found
challenged
instruction
restrict
impermissibly
jury
consideration
relevant
evidence
accord
holding
boyde
constrict
limit
prior
cases
requirements
eighth
amendment
reliance
saffle
parks
also
misplaced
saffle
issue
whether
new
rule
standards
teague
lane
defendant
entitled
instruction
allowing
jury
decline
impose
death
penalty
based
mere
sympathy
held
sure
language
saffle
suggesting
state
may
limit
sentencer
consideration
mitigating
evidence
long
sentencer
may
give
effect
evidence
see
extent
saffle
suggests
anything
state
may
prevent
sentencer
declining
impose
death
penalty
based
mere
sympathy
language
dictum
construed
overruling
years
precedent
limiting
sentencer
discretion
react
based
unfocused
sympathy
equivalent
preventing
sentencer
giving
reasoned
moral
response
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
based
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
reaffirmed
continually
since
constitution
prohibits
latter
limitation
outh
chronological
fact
eddings
emotional
mental
immaturity
young
people
may
cause
respond
events
ways
adult
jurors
johnson
case
give
effect
aspect
johnson
youth
vacate
johnson
sentence
remand
resentencing
death
penalty
statutes
either
specifically
list
age
defendant
mitigating
circumstance
prohibit
execution
see
ann
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
supp
ilcs
supp
baldwin
art
west
art
supp
ann
supp
supp
ann
neb
vi
supp
west
ohio
ann
tit
purdon
code
ann
supp
ann
utah
code
ann
supp
ann
remaining
six
allow
jury
consider
evidence
mitigation
without
specifying
examples
see
tit
supp
code
ann
idaho
code
tit
supp
codified
laws
supp
current
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp