State v. Henderson
144 So. 3d 1262
Ala.2013Background
- Two juveniles (Larry Henderson, 16 at the offense; Rashad Stoves, 17 at the offense) were indicted in Jefferson County, Alabama for capital murder (murders committed during first-degree robbery; Stoves also charged under the multi-victim capital provision).
- Alabama law defined a capital offense as punishable only by death or life without parole; Alabama’s statute required a separate capital sentencing hearing and made age a statutory mitigating factor.
- Both juveniles moved to dismiss the capital-murder indictments after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama (invalidating mandatory life without parole for juveniles), arguing that Alabama’s capital statute is unconstitutional as applied because neither death nor mandatory LWOP is now available for juveniles.
- Alabama trial courts denied the motions; the Court of Criminal Appeals denied mandamus petitions; the juveniles petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases for decision.
- The Alabama Supreme Court denied the writs (petition denied) but held that Miller does not require dismissal; it explained that Miller invalidates mandatory LWOP for juveniles but does not categorically bar LWOP and set out factors that must be considered at a juvenile capital sentencing hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller v. Alabama requires dismissal of capital indictments because Alabama’s capital statute only authorizes death or LWOP for convicted capital offenders | Henderson/Stoves: With Roper removing death for juveniles and Miller removing mandatory LWOP, capital indictments fail to charge a constitutionally punishable offense and must be dismissed | State: Miller addressed sentencing procedure (mandates individualized consideration), not the validity of capital convictions; defendants still face LWOP as a ceiling and individualized sentencing can be applied | Denied petition; Miller does not require dismissal—indictments stand; mandatory LWOP for juveniles must be replaced by individualized sentencing consideration |
| Whether a juvenile can receive LWOP at all under Miller | Juveniles: LWOP effectively unavailable absent a valid alternative; uncertainty about punishment denies due process | State: LWOP remains a possible sentence (a “ceiling”), but Miller requires sentencer to consider youth-related mitigating factors and parole possibilities | Held: LWOP is not categorically barred for homicide juveniles; sentencer must consider youth and related factors before imposing LWOP |
| Whether Alabama must rewrite its capital statute or courts may apply Miller principles | Juveniles: Court would be rewriting statute if it provides non‑LWOP sentencing options | State: Courts may apply Miller to sentencing without statutory rewrite; prior Alabama precedent supports judicial adjustment to conform with Supreme Court mandates | Held: Court may sever the mandatory aspect and apply Miller-guided sentencing; legislative text (and §§ 13A-5-58, -59) supports preserving valid parts of statute |
| What factors sentencing courts must consider under Miller for juvenile capital offenders | Juveniles: Miller requires individualized consideration but not specific enumerated factors | State: Sentencer must consider youth but specifics are for trial court discretion | Held: Court provided a non‑exclusive list of 14 factors (age, hallmark features of youth, diminished culpability, offense circumstances, participation level, family/home environment, emotional maturity, peer/familial pressure, exposure to violence, substance history, ability to deal with police, capacity to assist counsel, mental‑health history, rehabilitation potential, and other youth‑related factors) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (recognizing categorical bar on death penalty for offenders under 18)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (holding mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment; requires individualized sentencing consideration)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (categorical bar on LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenders; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (plurality opinion addressing death penalty for offenders under 16 and analyzing evolving standards)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (recognizing categorical exemption from death penalty for mentally retarded defendants)
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (invalidating mandatory death sentence; requiring consideration of individual character and circumstances)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (requiring that sentencers not be precluded from considering any mitigating evidence)