Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1976

Roberts v. Louisiana

428 U.S. 325 | 96 S. Ct. 3001 | 49 L. Ed. 2d 974 | 1976 U.S. LEXIS 14

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Roberts held that a State cannot cure Furman by making death automatic: capital sentencing must allow meaningful, guided consideration of the individual offender and the particular crime.

Background

Richard G. Lowe, a gas-station attendant in Lake Charles, Louisiana, was found shot four times in the head after an armed robbery. Stanislaus Roberts was indicted for first-degree murder on the allegation that, with specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, he killed Lowe while committing an armed robbery. Accomplices testified that Roberts participated in the robbery, took a pistol from the station office, and shot Lowe.

A Louisiana jury found Roberts guilty of first-degree murder. Under Louisiana's 1973 post-Furman statute, that verdict required a death sentence; neither the judge nor the jury could consider mitigating circumstances or recommend mercy with legal effect. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the mandatory death sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the death penalty is categorically cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Holding

No. Capital punishment is not unconstitutional in every circumstance.

Reasoning

The Court rejected Roberts's categorical challenge for the reasons explained in Gregg v. Georgia, decided the same day. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit capital punishment as such, although it imposes constitutional limits on how a State selects the offenders who may receive it.

Issue #2

Whether Louisiana may impose death automatically on every defendant convicted of its defined crime of first-degree murder.

Holding

No. Louisiana's mandatory death-penalty statute violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Reasoning

Louisiana responded to Furman v. Georgia by eliminating its former express jury discretion to return a verdict of guilty without capital punishment. Its revised statute made death automatic whenever a jury found first-degree murder, including an intentional killing committed during an armed robbery. The Court held that simply making death mandatory did not cure Furman's concern with arbitrary capital sentencing.

reasoning omitted

Issue #3

Whether narrowing the definition of first-degree murder supplied the individualized consideration required for capital punishment.

Holding

No. Defining capital murder more narrowly did not remedy the constitutional defect of a mandatory death sentence.

Reasoning

The plurality explained that American legislatures historically tried narrowing capital offenses before moving away from mandatory death sentences. That history reflected a settled recognition that offenders within the same legal category may differ substantially in culpability, background, and the circumstances of their crimes.

Louisiana's felony-murder category still covered a wide range of conduct and offenders. Nor did the statute's other capital-murder categories generally permit meaningful consideration of mitigating facts about the offense or the defendant. A mandatory sentence therefore failed to focus on the particular offense and the character and propensities of the individual offender.

Issue #4

Whether Louisiana's required lesser-offense instructions adequately prevented arbitrary and capricious imposition of death.

Holding

No. The responsive-verdict system left unchanneled, unreviewable de facto discretion and thus did not satisfy Furman.

Reasoning

In every first-degree murder trial, Louisiana required instructions on second-degree murder and manslaughter even where the evidence provided no basis for those lesser offenses. A lesser verdict acquitted the defendant of the greater charge. Thus, although the law formally made death automatic after a first-degree murder conviction, it gave jurors a practical means to spare a defendant they believed did not deserve death.

That system invited jurors to disregard their instructions and select a lesser verdict when death seemed inappropriate. It provided no standards to guide that covert sentencing choice, no assurance that jurors would receive evidence bearing on the defendant's character or record, and no meaningful appellate review to detect arbitrary decisions. The statute consequently combined mandatory death in form with standardless discretion in practice.

Concurrences

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan concurred only in the judgment. Consistent with his dissent in Gregg v. Georgia, he concluded that capital punishment itself is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than invalid solely because Louisiana made it mandatory.

Justice Marshall

Reasoning

Justice Marshall also concurred only in the judgment. For the reasons set out in his Gregg dissent, he regarded the death penalty as categorically forbidden by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, so Louisiana's sentencing scheme was unconstitutional regardless of its procedural features.

Dissents

Chief Justice Burger

Reasoning

Chief Justice Burger dissented for the reasons expressed in his Furman v. Georgia dissent. He did not accept Furman's invalidation of then-existing capital-sentencing systems and therefore disagreed with setting aside Roberts's death sentence.

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun and Rehnquist, maintained that Louisiana had removed the central feature that produced Furman's constitutional problem: the jury's lawful and uncontrolled authority to spare a defendant from death. Under the new law, jurors were instructed to convict of first-degree murder when the evidence proved its elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and death followed that lawful conviction automatically.

In Justice White's view, the possibility that jurors might disobey their instructions and nullify by returning an unsupported lesser verdict was not equivalent to legally granted sentencing discretion. Likewise, ordinary charging choices, plea bargaining, and executive clemency were routine components of criminal justice, not proof that Louisiana would impose death arbitrarily or freakishly.

He also rejected the plurality's requirement of individualized consideration and a separate sentencing process. Relying on McGautha v. California, he argued that the Constitution did not require a bifurcated proceeding or standards for jury sentencing, and that a State could reasonably determine that certain narrowly defined intentional murders always warranted death.

Finally, Justice White faulted the plurality's historical argument. He reasoned that past legislative movement away from mandatory death for all first-degree murders did not establish a constitutional prohibition on mandatory death for Louisiana's narrower categories of murder. In his view, the Court improperly substituted its policy preferences for the legislature's judgment.

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun separately dissented on the grounds stated in his Furman dissent and in the other dissents he joined there. He would not hold Louisiana's mandatory death sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.