Stripling v. State
289 Ga. 370
| Ga. | 2011Background
- In 1988 Stripling, working as a cook trainee at a Douglasville KFC, shot four coworkers after closing, killing two and injuring two, then fled in a stolen car after stealing money.
- Convicted on two counts each of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, and sentenced to death for each murder.
- Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences in Stripling v. State, 261 Ga. 1, 401 S.E.2d 500 (1991).
- Stripling filed a habeas corpus petition; the habeas court granted relief as to the death sentence, prompting this court to order retrial on mental retardation and, if not retarded, retrial on sentencing (Head v. Stripling, 277 Ga. 403, 590 S.E.2d 122 (2003)).
- Interim review was granted to address three questions: burden of proof for mental retardation, order of opening/closing in the mental retardation phase, and authority to accept a guilty but mentally retarded plea.
- The Supreme Court held that (a) the beyond a reasonable doubt burden is constitutional, (b) normal guilt/innocence procedural rules apply to the mental retardation retrial, and (c) the trial court may consider a guilty but mentally retarded plea if both parties consent and a factual basis exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for mental retardation | Stripling urged burden on State to prove non-retardation beyond doubt. | State should bear burden to show Stripling is not mentally retarded, under heightened standard. | Beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutional. |
| Order of opening/closing in the mental retardation phase | Stripling should have opening statements and sequence favorable to him. | Procedural order should mirror guilt/innocence phase with State initiating. | Procedural rules apply as in guilt/innocence; sequence set by statute and rule. |
| Plea of guilty but mentally retarded | Trial court lacked authority to accept any such plea if the verdict remained incomplete. | Completion of the incomplete verdict could occur via a guilty but mentally retarded plea. | Court may consider a guilty but mentally retarded plea with consent and a factual basis; verdict completion possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Head v. Hill, 277 Ga. 255 (2003) (affirmed Georgia's heightened standard for mental retardation as constitutional)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (national consensus against executing mentally retarded; states to enforce restriction)
- Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952) (insanity standard used to justify higher burden, analogized to mental retardation)
- Ferrell v. Hall, 640 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2011) (national consensus and standards for mental retardation procedures)