Post v. Ohio
484 U.S. 1079
SCOTUS
1988
Check Treatment

*1 Mays v. Tex.; No. 87-5575. Texas. Crim. App. Ct. Lynaugh, Director, No. 87-5717. Griffin Texas De v. partment Cir.; 5th Corrections. C. A. No. Macias v. Ct. App. Tex.; 87-5799. Texas. Crim. No. 87-5873. v. Butler, Cir.; Wilson Warden. C. A. 5th Drayton No. South Sup. C.; 87-5989. Carolina. Ct. S. No. 87-6014. Shurn v. Ct. Sup. Ill.; Illinois. Stumpf Sup. Ohio; No. 87-6019. Ohio. Ct. Diaz v. Sup. Fla.; Florida. Ct. Ala.;

No. 87-6132. Ford v. Sup. Alabama. Ct. Jennings No. 87-6172. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio- v. rari denied. Marshall,

Justice Brennan and Justice dissenting. our Adhering views that the death all circum- cruel punishment prohibited by stances and unusual v. Amendments, Gregg Georgia, and Fourteenth 428 U. S. (1976), we certiorari and vacate the death sentences these cases. Corley Meese,

No. 87-5655. States. Ct. D. C. denied. United Certiorari Justice part took no Scalia consideration decision petition. Post Ohio. Ct. Certiorari Sup. Ohio. de-

nied. Marshall,

Justice with whom Justice joins, Brennan dissenting.

I my Adhering view that all circum- stances cruel and punishment prohibited Eighth unusual Amendments, Gregg Georgia, and Fourteenth 428 U. S. (1976) J., (Marshall, 231-241 dissenting), would vacate the judgment Court insofar it left undisturbed the sentence of death this case.

II *2 view, vacate sen- petitioner’s Even if I not hold this did circumstances this under the same imposed it was tence because Maryland, 482 U. S. 496 condemned Booth v. recently (1987). a statute that Booth, the invalidated In information in a case consider the sentencer required was statement.” The statement impact in a “victim contained of Parole and Maryland State Division by the prepared the victim’s impact of the crime on the emotional and described offense, the of- opinions as well as their family members This held punishment. fender, appropriate and the to a decision and capital sentencing is irrelevant such information constitutionally risk impermissible creates admission in an man- will of such evidence that the introduction ner. We concluded decisionmaking required consistent with case, Ray a plea Ronald Post entered petitioner In instant murder charges aggravated aggravated of of no contest killing of of a motel desk clerk robbery arising during out A three-judge panel peti- convicted robbery armed of motel. At sentencing hearing. on counts and convened a tioner all report hearing, pre- received sentencing panel of that contained a vic- by county probation pared department addition, In the victim’s son testified impact statement. tim the effect of the murder on vic- orally panel regarding to the of urged panel to return sentence death. family tim’s the murder aggravating The found one circumstance—that robbery armed no during committed the course of an was —and circumstances; petitioner it therefore sentenced mitigating death. on petitioner’s ap- affirmed sentence Ohio must be that his sentence va- rejecting petitioner’s argument

peal, it was violation Booth cated because N. 3d E. 2d 754 court Ohio St. supra. the admission the written victim recognized was error the oral of the victim’s son statement and analysis law the federal constitutional under both Ohio prejudicial court that the error was not Booth. But the concluded was three-judge panel because sentencer rather than a jury. pre-Booth Citing case, court invoked the consider relevant evidence and found that a capital sentencing court’s decision must stand absent an indication that the court “was influenced victim impact considered” ev- idence at its arriving 3d, decision. 32 St. 2d,

N. E. Observing 759. the panel’s mentioned the victim did evidence but not cite it as a basis decision, for its the court petitioner’s concluded that sentence could stand. Ibid. reasoning of the Ohio flatly Court is inconsistent

with both the of this The Maryland Booth. statute considered Booth evidence be considered both juries.* courts and complete way Court’s invalidation that statute in no dis *3 or tinguished preserved a question nonjury to sentencings. Moreover, Booth, Maryland both the Court of and Appeals the in its argument to this Court on a primarily prior relied Maryland capital case in which the sentencer was a judge. See State, Lodowski v. 302 Md. 490 2dA. noted argument and cited Lodowski in Booth without

according any relevance to identity the of sentencer. See Booth 506-507, at n. 9. the supra, Furthermore, reason ing of Booth made clear that the result in opinion that case did require not showing the victim “in actually evidence Rather, fluenced” the sentencer. stated expressly evidence was inadmissible because created “a constitutionally unacceptable risk” sentencer would S., manner. 482 U. added). (emphasis Indeed, the Court its summarized hold ing by stating: “We conclude that the introduction of im [victim pact at the sentencing phase statement] murder trial Id., violates Amendment . . . .” (emphasis added). The could have its reached conclu- part:

*The statute read in relevant any “In case in requested which death ... vestigation, including impact statement, completed by a victim shall be court or Division Parole and shall be considered separate sentencing proceeding before whom the . . . .” conducted Md. 4-609(d) (1957) added). Code, (emphasis § Ann. Art. of this Court’s deci- significant aspects these ignoring sion be in Booth. sion are presumption judges of the established am mindful relevant and irrelevant evidence. between distinguish

able case, however, in this that the three- every There is indication panel’s writ- any failed to make such distinction. judge panel the presentence notes that it “considered” opinion explicitly ten it, contained the victim state- which report submitted victim’s son. ment, it “heard” the statement of the and that point hearing 40. At no either at the or to Pet. for Cert. any awareness that such did the demonstrate prohibited by inadmissible under state law evidence was More Federal Constitution. important, the rules of evidence should not be con- judges apply know inhuman, incapa- to conclude that are verted into license It by passion moved as well as reason. would be being ble of moved, that no could be presume judge unrealistic and unwise deed, by anguish rage expressed by in both heart and family. potentially inflammatory effect of murder victim’s in Booth that its admission such evidence convinced endangered decisionmaking case, in per- In the instant which the evidence took form of third-person, description, sonal as well as there because the denigrate danger simply recipi- is no reason to judicial ents of the evidence wore robes. in this case threatens to

undermine both the of this Court’s de- cision Booth. The Court should certiorari order to *4 of its recent preserve integrity pronouncement. dissent. Hartigan, of the ante, Zbaraz Illinois, al., 171; et et p. al. No. 86-1415. Marino al. et et al.; Ortiz Costello City Department al., ante, et York Police et al. New 301; p. Department Washington Army, ante, 985; p. al., ante,

No. 87-115. Olavarrieta United States et 851; p.