Brown v. Payton
A California jury convicted William Payton of murder, rape, and two counts of attempted murder. During sentencing, the court failed to correctly explain the application of California's Penal Code, section 190.3(k) following the prosecutor's misstatement of the law to the members of the jury instructing them not to consider defendant's post-crime mitigating evidence. The court did instruct the jury that the prosecutor's statements should not be regarded as evidence in the case and that the jury should consider "any other circumstance" as dictated by the California statute. The jury sentenced the defendant to death and the California Supreme Court affirmed. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied Federal law. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Ninth Circuit had the authority to reverse the California Supreme Court.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
In Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990), this Court upheld the constitutionality of California's "catch-all" mitigation instruction in capital cases, which directs a jury to consider "any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime." The mitigating evidence at issue in Boyde was pre-crime evidence in mitigation. Relying on Boyde, the California Supreme Court held that California's "catch-all" mitigation instruction in this capital case is constitutional as applied to post-crime evidence in mitigation. In a 6-5 decision, the en banc Ninth Circuit held that the California Supreme Court decision was objectively unreasonable "because Boyde does not control this case." The question presented is:
- Did the Ninth Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when it found the California Supreme Court objectively unreasonable in holding that California's "catch-all" mitigation instruction in capital cases is constitutional as applied to post-crime evidence in mitigation?
The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Payton may clarify California's standard regarding the mitigating evidence a jury may consider during the penalty phase of a capital trial.