State v. Ninham
2011 WI 33
Wis.2011Background
- Ninham, age 14 at the offense, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and physical abuse of a child for the death of 13-year-old Zong Vang.
- He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the homicide count, plus a consecutive five-year term for the child abuse count.
- The circuit court relied on factors including the gravity of the offense, Ninham's character, and public protection in imposing the sentence.
- Ninham later moved for post-conviction relief under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, arguing categorically against the constitutionality of life without parole for a 14-year-old and asserting several alternative bases for modification.
- The circuit court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Ninham’s arguments and finding Roper v. Simmons inapplicable to this case.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to address whether a 14-year-old may be sentenced to life without parole for intentional homicide and, if not categorically, whether modification is warranted under the described factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is life without parole for a 14-year-old homicide offender categorically unconstitutional? | Ninham argues it violates the Eighth Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution. | State contends statute is constitutional and aligns with Graham framework. | Not categorically unconstitutional; national consensus not against the practice; independent judgment upholds constitutionality. |
| Is Ninham's sentence unduly harsh and excessive under § 974.06? | Disproportionate given his age and upbringing. | Sentence is severe but proportionate given the crime and aggravation. | Not unduly harsh or excessive; discretionary upholding affirmed. |
| Does new scientific evidence on adolescent brain development constitute a 'new factor' warranting modification? | MRI/brain development research undermines culpability and recidivism findings. | Evidence existed in some form; not a true 'new factor' highly relevant to sentence. | Not a new factor; evidence does not warrant modification. |
| Did the circuit court rely on an improper factor (Vang's family religious beliefs) in imposing sentence? | Religious beliefs of the family influenced sentencing. | Comment was about cultural clash and Ninham's intolerance, not a basis for sentence. | No clear and convincing evidence of reliance on improper factor; no basis for modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. (2010)) (limits life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; evolving standards)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. (2005)) (juvenile death penalty prohibition; diminished culpability of juveniles)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. (2002)) (limits death penalty for intellectually disabled individuals)
- Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (U.S. (1988)) (juvenile death penalty for under-16 offenders prohibited)
- Gertl? (Note: use correct binding authorities as cited in opinion), 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. (1976)) (Gregg v. Georgia; proportionality and deference to legislative judgments)
- Paske, 163 Wis. 2d 52 (Wis. 1991) (cruel and unusual punishment standard in Wisconsin)