Smith v. Schriro
813 F.3d 1175
9th Cir.2016Background
- Robert Smith was convicted in Arizona (1982) of murder, rape, and kidnapping and sentenced to death; after Atkins v. Virginia (2002) he sought relief claiming intellectual disability.
- Arizona state courts held an Atkins evidentiary hearing (2007) and found Smith not intellectually disabled; appellate review and Arizona Supreme Court denied relief; federal habeas proceedings resumed under pre‑AEDPA standards.
- Experts: Smith’s retained expert relied on a 1964 Otis IQ score (62) and poor childhood academic records; State’s expert relied on 2005–2007 WAIS/Slosson scores (89–93) showing current low‑average functioning.
- The district court denied habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit panel reviewed de novo, concluded the state findings were not fairly supported by the record and that the trial court applied an improper “certainty” standard of proof.
- Applying Hall v. Florida and Atkins, the Ninth Circuit majority held Smith met Arizona’s two substantive prongs (significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and impaired adaptive behavior) with onset before age 18 and reversed, instructing the district court to grant the writ as to the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state‑court factual finding that Smith was not intellectually disabled is entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 | State court ruling lacks fair support in the record; evidence (1964 Otis 62, school records, lay testimony, expert opinion) shows disability | State relied on later high IQs and other evidence to rebut childhood scores and adaptive deficits; state factual finding should be presumed correct | State court finding not fairly supported by the record; deference denied under §2254(d)(8) and court reviews Atkins claim de novo |
| Whether the trial court applied an unconstitutional standard of proof in evaluating Atkins claim | The trial court effectively required “any degree of certainty,” an impermissibly onerous standard allocating the risk to the defendant | State contends the court applied the required clear‑and‑convincing or preponderance standard (and appellate court affirmed) | Majority: trial court applied an unduly burdensome “certainty” standard contrary to Arizona law and constitutionally impermissible; that error independently defeats deference (Section II.C.2 not joined by two judges) |
| Whether Smith satisfied the intellectual‑functioning prong (IQ ≤ 70 at relevant times) | The 1964 Otis score of 62 (adjusted for Flynn effect), plus consistent poor school achievement and other evidence, proves significantly subaverage functioning pre‑18 and at time of crime | State points to valid 2005–07 IQ scores (89–93) and other contemporaneous evidence suggesting non‑disability at time of crime/trial; Otis and school records are unreliable/unvalidated | Court finds Otis 62 reliable when read with Flynn effect and corroborated by school records; later IQ gains plausibly occurred after incarceration; held Smith met intellectual‑functioning prong |
| Whether Smith satisfied the adaptive‑behavior prong (significant limitations in daily/social functioning) | Lay testimony, school special‑education placement, lifelong impulsivity, immaturity, inability to hold steady employment, poor social/communication/hygiene skills show pervasive adaptive deficits | State emphasizes adaptive strengths and independence (years of employment, marriages, Rule 11 competency reports) as evidence against significant impairment | Court finds adaptive deficits pervasive and persistent (parallels to Grell); adaptive strengths do not negate significant impairment; held Smith met adaptive‑behavior prong |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (holding execution of intellectually disabled offenders violates Eighth Amendment)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (IQ scores must be read as ranges; when within SEM defendant may present additional evidence of disability)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (states craft procedures to enforce Eighth Amendment prohibitions on executing the insane)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standards of proof allocate risk of error; psychiatric determinations implicate appropriate burdens)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (methodology for assessing national consensus under Eighth Amendment jurisprudence)
- State v. Grell, 231 Ariz. 153, 291 P.3d 350 (Ariz. 2013) (Arizona Supreme Court precedent on intellectual‑disability elements and adaptive behavior)
- State v. Arellano, 213 Ariz. 474, 143 P.3d 1015 (Ariz. 2006) (Arizona guidance on Atkins claims and evidentiary treatment)
- State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 298 P.3d 887 (Ariz. 2013) (discussion of rebuttable presumption from low IQ scores and how State may rebut)