SHAFER v. SOUTH CAROLINA
No. 00-5250
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 9, 2001—Decided March 20, 2001
532 U.S. 36
Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Deputy Attorney General of South Carolina, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charlie Condon, Attorney General, John W. McIntosh, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and S. Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General.*
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the right of a defendant in a capital case to inform the jury that, under the governing state law, he would not be eligible for parole in the event that the jury sentences him to life imprisonment. In Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), this Court held that where a capital defendant‘s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant “to inform the jury of [his] parole ineligibility, either by a jury instruction or in arguments by counsel.” Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U. S. 156, 165 (2000) (plurality opinion) (describing Simmons’ premise and plurality opinion). The case we now confront involves a death sentence returned by a jury instructed both that “life imprison-
I
In April 1997, in the course of an attempted robbery in Union County, South Carolina, then-18-year-old Wesley Aaron Shafer, Jr., shot and killed a convenience store cashier. A grand jury indicted Shafer on charges of murder, attempted armed robbery, and criminal conspiracy. App. 2-4. Prior to trial, the prosecutor notified Shafer that the State would seek the death penalty for the murder. App. 4-5. In that pursuit, the prosecutor further informed Shafer, the State would present evidence of Shafer‘s “prior bad acts,” as well as his “propensity for [future] violence and unlawful conduct.” App. 6, 8.
Under South Carolina law, juries in capital cases consider guilt and sentencing in separate proceedings.
Under amendments effective January 1, 1996, South Carolina capital jurors face two questions at sentencing. They decide first whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any statutory aggravating circumstance. If the jury fails to agree unanimously on
During the sentencing proceeding in Shafer‘s case, the State introduced evidence of his criminal record, past aggressive conduct, probation violations, and misbehavior in prison. The State urged the statutory aggravating circumstance that Shafer had committed the murder in the course of an attempted robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. See
Near the completion of the parties’ sentencing presentations, the trial judge conducted an in camera hearing on jury instructions. Shafer‘s counsel maintained that due process, and our decision in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), required the judge to instruct that under South Carolina law a life sentence carries no possibility of parole. The prosecutor, in opposition, urged that Shafer was not entitled to a Simmons instruction because “the State has not argued at any point... that he would be a danger to anybody in the future, nor will we argue [that] in our closing argument....” App. 161. Shafer‘s counsel replied: “The State cannot introduce evidence of future dangerousness, and then say we are not going to argue it and [thereby avoid] a charge on the law.... They have introduced [evidence of a] post arrest assault, [and] post arrest violations of the rules of the jail.... If you put a jailer on to say that [Shafer] is charged with assault... on [the jailer], that is future dangerousness.” App. 162. Ruling that “the matter of parole
Unsuccessful in his effort to gain a court instruction on parole ineligibility, Shafer‘s counsel sought permission to impart the information to the jury himself. He sought leave to read in his closing argument lines from the controlling statute,
Instructing the jury, the judge explained:
“If you do not unanimously find the existence of the aggravating circumstance as set forth on the form [murder during the commission of an attempted armed robbery], you do not need to go any further.
“If you find unanimously the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance... you will go further and continue your deliberations.
“Once you have unanimously found and signed as to the presence of an aggravated circumstance, you then further deliberate, and determine whether or not Wesley Aaron Shafer should be sentence[d] to life imprisonment or death.” App. 202.
The judge twice told the jury, quoting words from
Three hours and twenty-five minutes into its sentencing deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial judge containing two questions:
“1) Is there any remote chance for someone convicted of murder to become elig[i]ble for parole?
“2) Under what conditions would someone convicted for murder be elig[i]ble.” App. 253.
Shafer‘s counsel urged the court to read to the jury the following portion of
“If the State seeks the death penalty and a statutory aggravating circumstance is found beyond a reasonable doubt... and a recommendation of death is not made, the trial judge must impose a sentence of life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, ‘life imprisonment’ means until death of the offender. No person sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to this section is eligible for parole, community supervision, or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, education credits, good conduct credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment required by this section.” App. 226 (emphasis added).
He argued that the court‘s charge, which partially quoted from
“Your consideration is restricted to what sentence to recommend. I will, as trial judge, impose the sentence you recommend. Section 16-3-20 of the South Carolina Code of Laws provides that for the purpose of this section life imprisonment means until the death of the offender. Parole eligibility is not for your consideration.” App. 236.
Shafer‘s counsel asked the judge “to take off the language of parole eligibility.” App. 236. The statement that “parole eligibility is not to be considered by [the jury],” counsel argued, “impl[ies] that it is available.” App. 236; see App. 239 (Shafer‘s counsel reiterated: “[I]f you tell them they can‘t consider parole eligibility... that certainly implies that he may be eligible.“).
Following counsels’ arguments, and nearly an hour after the jury tendered its questions, the trial judge instructed:
“Section 16-3-20 of our Code of Laws as applies to this case in the process we‘re in, states that, quote, for the purposes of this section life imprisonment means until the death of the offender, end quote.
“Parole eligibility or ineligibility is not for your consideration.” App. 240.
The jury returned some 80 minutes later. It unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating factor of murder while attempting armed robbery, and recommended the death penalty. App. 242-243. The jury was polled, and each member indicated his or her assent to the aggravated circumstance finding and to the death penalty recommendation. App. 243-248. Defense counsel asked that the jury be polled on “the specific question as to whether parole eligibility, their belief therein, gave rise to the verdict,” and “whether juror number 233 who works for probation and pa-
Shafer appealed his death sentence to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Noting our decision in Simmons, the South Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged that “[w]hen the State places the defendant‘s future dangerousness at issue and the only available alternative sentence to the death penalty is life imprisonment without parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the jury he is parole ineligible.” 340 S. C., at 297-298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528. Without considering whether the prosecutor‘s evidentiary submissions or closing argument in fact placed Shafer‘s future dangerousness at issue, the court held Simmons generally inapplicable to South Carolina‘s “new sentencing scheme.” Under that scheme, life without the possibility of parole and death are not the only authorized sentences, the court said, for there is a third potential sentence, “a mandatory minimum thirty year sentence.” 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528 (citing State v. Starnes, 340 S. C. 312, 531 S. E. 2d 907 (2000) (decided the same day as Shafer)).3
Chief Justice Finney dissented. “[T]he overriding principle to be drawn from [Simmons],” he stated, “is that due process is violated when a jury‘s speculative misunderstanding about a capital defendant‘s parole eligibility is allowed to go uncorrected.” Id., at 310, 531 S. E. 2d, at 534. Due process mandates reversal here, he concluded, because “the jury‘s inquiry prompted a misleading response which suggested parole was a possibility.” Ibid. Moreover, Chief Justice Finney added, when “a capital jury inquires about parole,” id., at 310, n. 2, 531 S. E. 2d, at 534, n. 2, even if the question “is simply one of policy, as the majority suggests [it is], then why not adopt a policy which gives the jurors the simpl[e] truth: no parole.” Id., at 311, 531 S. E. 2d, at 534.
II
South Carolina has consistently refused to inform the jury of a capital defendant‘s parole eligibility status.4 We first confronted this practice in Simmons. The South Carolina sentencing scheme then in effect,
Mindful of the “longstanding practice of parole availability,” id., at 177 (O‘CONNOR, J.), we recognized that Simmons’ jury, charged to chose between death and life imprisonment, may have been misled. Given no clear definition of “life imprisonment” and told not to consider parole eligibility, that jury “reasonably may have believed that [Simmons] could be released on parole if he were not executed.” Id., at 161 (plurality opinion); see id., at 177-178 (O‘CONNOR, J.). It did not comport with due process, we held, for the State to “secur[e] a death sentence on the ground, at least in part, of [defendant‘s] future dangerousness, while at the same time concealing from the sentencing jury the true meaning of its [only] noncapital sentencing alternative, namely, that life imprisonment meant life without parole.” Id., at 162 (plurality opinion); see id., at 178 (O‘CONNOR, J.) (“Where the State puts the defendant‘s future dangerousness in issue, and the only available alternative sentence to death is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the capital sentencing jury—by either argument or instruction—that he is parole ineligible.“).
As earlier stated, see supra, at 46-47, the South Carolina Supreme Court held Simmons “inapplicable under the [State‘s] new sentencing scheme,” 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528. Simmons is not triggered, the South Carolina court said, unless life without parole is “the only legally available sentence alternative to death.” 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528. Currently, the court observed, when a capital case jury begins its sentencing deliberations, three alternative sentences are available: “1) death, 2) life without the possibility of parole, or 3) a mandatory minimum thirty year sentence.” Ibid. “Since one of these alternatives to
This reasoning might be persuasive if the jury‘s sentencing discretion encompassed the three choices the South Carolina court identified. But, that is not how the State‘s new scheme works. See supra, at 40-41. Under the law now governing, in any case in which the jury does not unanimously find a statutory aggravator, death is not a permissible sentence and Simmons has no relevance. In such a case, the judge alone becomes the sentencer.
The South Carolina Supreme Court was no doubt correct to this extent: At the time the trial judge instructed the jury in Shafer‘s case, it was indeed possible that Shafer would receive a sentence other than death or life without the possibility of parole. That is so because South Carolina, in line with other States, gives capital juries, at the penalty phase, discrete and sequential functions. Initially, capital juries serve as factfinders in determining whether an alleged aggravating circumstance exists. Once that factual threshold is passed, the jurors exercise discretion in determining the punishment that ought to be imposed. The trial judge in Shafer‘s case recognized the critical difference in the two functions. He charged that “[a] statutory aggravating circumstance is a fact, an incident, a detail or an occurrence,” the existence of which must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. App. 203. Turning to the sentencing choice, he referred to considerations of “fairness and mercy,” and the defendant‘s “moral culpability.” App. 204. He also instructed
In sum, when the jury determines the existence of a statutory aggravator, a tightly circumscribed factual inquiry, none of Simmons’ due process concerns arise. There are no “misunderstanding[s]” to avoid, no “false choice[s]” to guard against. See Simmons, 512 U. S., at 161 (plurality opinion). The jury, as aggravating circumstance factfinder, exercises no sentencing discretion itself. If no aggravator is found, the judge takes over and has sole authority to impose the mandatory minimum so heavily relied upon by the South Carolina Supreme Court. See supra, at 46-47, 49-50. It is only when the jury endeavors the moral judgment whether to impose the death penalty that parole eligibility may become critical. Correspondingly, it is only at that stage that Simmons comes into play, a stage at which South Carolina law provides no third choice, no 30-year mandatory minimum, just death or life without parole. See Ramdass, 530 U. S., at 169 (Simmons applies where “as a legal matter, there is no possibility of parole if the jury decides the appropriate sentence is life in prison.” (emphasis added)).5 We therefore hold that whenever future dangerousness is at issue in a capital sentencing proceeding under South Carolina‘s new scheme, due process requires that the jury be informed that a life sentence carries no possibility of parole.
South Carolina offers two other grounds in support of the trial judge‘s refusal to give Shafer‘s requested parole ineligibility instruction. First, the State argues that the jury was properly informed of the law on parole ineligibility by the trial court‘s instructions and by defense counsel‘s own argument. Second, the State contends that no parole ineligibility instruction was required under Simmons because the State never argued Shafer would pose a future danger to society. We now turn to those arguments.
A
“Even if this Court finds Simmons was triggered,” the State urges, “the defense‘s closing argument and the judge‘s charge fulfilled the requirements of Simmons.” Brief for Respondent 38. To support that contention, the State sets out defense counsel‘s closing pleas that, if Shafer‘s life is spared, he will “die in prison” after “spend[ing] his natural life there.” Id., at 39. Next, the State recites passages from the trial judge‘s instructions reiterating that “life imprisonment means until the death of the defendant.” Id., at 40.
The South Carolina Supreme Court, we note, never suggested that counsel‘s arguments or the trial judge‘s instructions satisfied Simmons. That court simply held Simmons inapplicable under the State‘s new sentencing scheme. 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528. We do not find the State‘s position persuasive. Displacement of “the longstanding practice of parole availability” remains a relatively recent development, and “common sense tells us that many jurors might not know whether a life sentence carries with it the possibility of parole.” Simmons, 512 U. S., at 177-178 (O‘CONNOR, J.). South Carolina‘s situation is illustrative. Until two years before Shafer‘s trial, as we earlier noted, the State‘s law did not categorically preclude parole for capital
Most plainly contradicting the State‘s contention, Shafer‘s jury left no doubt about its failure to gain from defense counsel‘s closing argument or the judge‘s instructions any clear understanding of what a life sentence means. The jurors sought further instruction, asking: “Is there any remote chance for someone convicted of murder to become elig[i]ble for parole?” App. 253; cf. Simmons, 512 U. S., at 178 (O‘CONNOR, J.) (“that the jury in this case felt compelled to ask whether parole was available shows that the jurors did not know whether or not a life-sentenced defendant will be released from prison“).6
The jury‘s comprehension was hardly aided by the court‘s final instruction: “Parole eligibility or ineligibility is not for your consideration.” App. 240. That instruction did nothing to ensure that the jury was not misled and may well have been taken to mean “that parole was available but that the jury, for some unstated reason, should be blind to this fact.” Simmons, 512 U. S., at 170 (plurality opinion); see 340 S. C., at 310, 531 S. E. 2d, at 534 (Finney, C. J., dissenting) (“[T]he jury‘s inquiry prompted a misleading response which suggested parole was a possibility.“); State v. Kelly, 343 S. C. 342, 375, 540 S. E. 2d 851, 863-864 (2001) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part) (“Without the knowledge that, if aggravators are found, a life sentence is not subject to being reduced by parole, or any other method of early release, the jury is likely to speculate unnecessarily on the possibility of early release, and impose a sentence of death
In sum, a life sentence for Shafer would permit no “parole, community supervision, ... early release program, ... or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment,”
B
Ultimately, the State maintains that “[t]he prosecution did not argue future dangerousness,” so the predicate for a Simmons charge is not present here. Brief for Respondent 42. That issue is not ripe for our resolution.
In the trial court, the prosecutor and defense counsel differed on what it takes to place future dangerousness “at issue.” The prosecutor suggested that the State must formally argue future dangerousness. App. 161. Defense counsel urged that once the prosecutor introduces evidence showing future dangerousness, the State cannot avoid a Simmons charge by saying the point was not argued or calling the evidence by another name. See App. 161-162.
As earlier recounted, the trial judge determined that future dangerousness was not at issue, but acknowledged, at one point, that the prosecutor had come close to crossing the line. See supra, at 41-42, 43. The South Carolina Supreme Court, in order to rule broadly that Simmons no longer governs capital sentencing in the State, apparently assumed, arguendo, that future dangerousness had been shown at Shafer‘s sentencing proceeding. See supra, at 46-47; cf. Kelly, 343 S. C., at 363, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857 (recognizing that future dangerousness is an issue when it is “a logical inference from the evidence” or was “injected into the case through the State‘s closing argument“). Because the South
*
*
*
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting.
While I concede that today‘s judgment is a logical extension of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), I am more attached to the logic of the Constitution, whose Due Process Clause was understood as an embodiment of common-law tradition, rather than as authority for federal courts to promulgate wise national rules of criminal procedure.
As I pointed out in Simmons, that common-law tradition does not contain special jury-instruction requirements for capital cases. Today‘s decision is the second page of the “whole new chapter” of our improvised “‘death-is-different’ jurisprudence” that Simmons began. Id., at 185 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). The third page (or the fourth or fifth) will be the (logical-enough) extension of this novel requirement to cases in which the jury did not inquire into the possibility of parole. Providing such information may well be a good idea (though it will sometimes harm rather than help the defendant‘s case)—and many States have indeed required it. See App. B to Brief for Petitioner. The Constitution, however, does not. I would limit Simmons to its facts.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
For better or, as I believe, worse, the majority‘s decision in this case is the logical next step after Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994). Now, whenever future dangerousness is placed at issue and the jury‘s potential sentencing choice is between life without parole and death, the trial court must instruct the jury on the impossibility of release even if there is an alternative sentence available to the court under which the defendant could be released. However, even accepting that sentencing courts in South Carolina must now permit the jury to learn about the impossibility of parole when life imprisonment is a sentencing possibility, I believe that the court‘s instructions and the arguments made by counsel in Shafer‘s case were sufficient to inform the jury of what “life imprisonment” meant for Shafer. I therefore respectfully dissent.
In Simmons, a majority of this Court was concerned that the jury in Simmons’ trial reasonably could have believed that, if he were sentenced to life, he would be eligible for parole. See id., at 161 (plurality opinion); id., at 177-178 (O‘CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment). Therefore, Simmons’ defense to future dangerousness—that because he sexually assaulted only elderly women, he would pose no danger to fellow inmates, see id., at 157 (plurality opinion)—would not have been effective. To correct the jury‘s possible misunderstanding of the availability of parole, Simmons requested several jury instructions, including one that would explain that, if he were sentenced to life imprisonment, “‘he actually w[ould] be sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for the balance of his natural life.‘” Id., at 160. The trial court rejected this instruction and instead ambiguously informed the jury that the term life imprisonment is to be understood according to its “‘plain and ordinary meaning,‘” which did “nothing to dispel the misunderstanding reasonable jurors may have about the way in which any particular State defines ‘life imprisonment.‘” Id., at 169-170.
In this case, by contrast, the judge repeatedly explained that “life imprisonment means until the death of the defendant.” App. 201. The judge defined “life imprisonment” as
Given these explanations of what life imprisonment means, which left no room for speculation by the jury, I can only infer that the jury‘s questions regarding parole referred not to Shafer‘s parole eligibility in the event the jury sentenced Shafer to life, but rather to his parole eligibility in the event it did not sentence him at all. In fact, both of the jury‘s questions referred only to parole eligibility of someone “convicted of murder,” id., at 239-240 (“[I]s there any remote chance that someone convicted of murder could become eligible for parole“); id., at 240 (“[U]nder what conditions would someone convicted for murder be eligible [for parole]“), rather than parole eligibility of someone sentenced to life imprisonment. Under South Carolina law, if the jury does not find an aggravating circumstance, someone convicted of murder could be sentenced to a term of 30 years’ imprisonment or greater. See
The majority appears to believe that it could develop jury instructions that are more precise than those offered to Shafer‘s jury. It may well be right. But it is not this Court‘s role to micromanage state sentencing proceedings or to develop model jury instructions. I would decline to interfere further with matters that the Constitution leaves to the States.