Defendant who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a texas state court sought habeas corpus relief. Penry s mother testified at trial that penry was unable to learn in school and never finished the first grade. After full briefing of the issues,the court of apqeals for the fifth circuit affirmed this courts denial of relief. That executing mentally retarded criminals is cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. Overturns penry v lynaugh executing people with mental disabilities is considered cruel and unusual punishment, but states are allowed to define mental disabilities all states now have a mental retardation statute preventing execution but texas. The united states district court for the eastern district of. Supreme court of the united states johnny paul penry. Evaluating intellectual disability after the moore v. Carlos deluna should not go to his death until some court, state or federal evolves its post penry jurisprudence. Lexis 3148 brought to you by free law project, a nonprofit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
The sentencing took place in the interim between our decisions in penry v. Challenging the death penalty for mentally retarded. The court, speaking through justice sandra day oconnor, also held that the. Supreme courts rulings on intellectual disability in capital cases, highlighting the difficulty states have had in devising a workable definition that meets constitutional standards. We now consider whether the jury instructions at penrys resentencing complied with our mandate in penry i. What was the main outcome of the us supreme court case. Penry held that the application of the death penalty to persons who are mentally retarded but not legally insane does not violate the eighth. He was found competent to stand trial, although a psychologist testified that he was mildly to moderately retarded and had the mental age of a 6 12 yearold. Mason argued the cause for the petitioner charles a. The latest versions of adobe reader do not support viewing pdf files within firefox on mac os and if you are using a modern intel mac.
Apas position apas position penry punishment by death is reserved for those selected on the basis of their blameworthiness and moral guild. In the supreme court of the united states scotusblog. In the penalty phase of the bifurcated trial, texas juries must answer yes or. Lynaugh, director, texas department of corrections petitioners claim. He was on death row between 1980 and 2008, and his case generated discussion about the appropriateness of the death penalty for offenders who are thought to be intellectually disabled.
The decision held that the texas special issues were insufficient to allow proper. Apr, 2017 in this case, the court decided that it was not always a cruel and an unusual punishment to execute an individual with mental retardation. Death penalty supreme court cases flashcards quizlet. Death penalty mentally retarded, mentally ill and mentally retarded rights of facts. Oconnor announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court, which was joined in part and dissented to in part by the other justices. The court denied the motion for relief from judgment on july 19, 1988. We now consider whether the jury instructions at penry s resentencing complied with our mandate in penry i.
Penry was also routinely locked in his room without access to a toilet for long periods of time. Johnny paul penry born may 5, 1956 is a texas prisoner serving three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without parole for rape and murder. Racial disparities in capital punishment in texas after penry. He was found competent to stand trial, although a psychologist testified that he was mildly to moderately retarded and had the mental age of a 6 12. However, because texas law did not allow the jury to give adequate consideration as a mitigating factor to johnny paul penry s intellectual. Penry is currently before the court on his petition in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus. Johnson, 2001 regarding whether the special issues as drafted at that time gave the jury a mechanism to consider and give weight to mitigating circumstances.
The latest versions of adobe reader do not support viewing pdf files within firefox on mac os and if you. In this case on the prohition against cruel and unusual punishment imposed by the eighth amendment and the fourteenth amendment, the court ruled that to inflict capital punishment on a mentally retarded prisoner was not necessarily unconstitutional. Lynaugh, director, texas department of correctionspetitioners claim. During the trials proceedings, the jury was not instructed that it could consider the mitigating circumstances of penry s intellectual disability in imposing its sentence. In penry v lynaugh, 492 us 302 1989, it jettisoned the notion of mental age as a tool for assessing such disabilities. Palmer, assistant attorney general of texas source for information.
Whether mentally retarded individuals possess the moral culpability to be subjected to the death penalty. Presumably for these reasons, in the years since we decided penry v. The death penalty is disproportionate to the degree of culpability of any defendant with intellectual disability. The state of texas retried penry in 1990, and that jury also found him guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to death. In penry i the court addressed the specialissue questions then submitted to texas juries to guide their sentencing determinations in capital cases. Specifically, societal views necessitate the evolving standards of decency to determine what is cruel and unusual.
Lynaugh 1989, the american public, legislators, scholars, and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal. Penry, a man with the mental age of barely seven years, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. No, because that was one of the types of evidence that was left out in eddings, the fact that when he went to live with his father, he was severely punished and abused by his father. As texas courts have yet to announce how they intend to apply this significant and farreaching decision, a stay of execution is clearly warranted. He was found competent to stand trial, although a psychologist testified that he was mildly to moderately retarded and had the mental age of a 612yearold. Quarterman, the majority responded to the concerns of. In a sequence of decisions between 1989 and 2014, the united states supreme court grappled with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the shadow of the imposition of the death penalty on criminal offenders. Under the new penry standard, jurors are specifically instructed to consider mitigating circumstances related to the offense as well as the offenders character, background, and personal moral culpability when deciding the sentence. Next, the texas court of criminal appeals ruling in ex parte briseno 2004 is discussed as a prelude to the supreme courts decision in moore v. Quizlet flashcards, activities and games help you improve your grades. Petitioner was sentenced to death for capital murder in texas. I think that sort of definition of deliberate would encompass most of penry s mitigating evidence.
He was on death row between 1980 and 2008, and his case generated discussion about the appropriateness of the death penalty for offenders who are thought to be intellectually disabled penry s case went twice to the united. Dec 19, 2017 penry s mother testified at trial that penry was unable to learn in school and never finished the first grade. Petitioner was charged with capital murder in texas state court. I do so here because the court has fleshed out the merits of penry s claim. Lynaugh is a supreme court case from 1989, where the court was asked to determine whether the imposition of the death penalty on a mentally handicapped defendant was cruel and unusual. Therefore, the decision to punish a crime with death requires a nexus between the punishment imposed and the defendants blameworthiness. We also consider whether the admission into evidence of statements from a. Penry was re convic ted and rese ntence d to death in 1990, and his conviction and sentence were once again affirmed on direc t appea l in 1995. He was convicted of this rape and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. Lynaugh, director, texas department of corrections. This evolution of capital sentencing considerations in texas and nationwide is continuing with. United states court of appeals for the fifth circuit citation.
The court considers the death penalty and mental capacity. He was found competent to stand trial, although a psychologist testified that he was mildly to moderately retarded and had the mental age of. Accordingly, the district courts judgment denying the writ is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for an order complying with the directions of the supreme court. In september of 1991, the texas capital punishment statute underwent revision as a result of the u. Audio transcription for oral argument january 11, 1989 in penry v. Lynaugh, 492 us 302 1989, penry, a mentally retarded man, was convicted of capital murder and. Supreme court of the united states year of decision. Penry s sister testified that their mother had frequently beaten him over the head with a belt when he was a child. Contributor names oconnor, sandra day judge supreme court of the united states author. In this case, the court decided that it was not always a cruel and an unusual punishment to execute an individual with mental retardation.
616 1387 1385 326 1102 1224 1164 912 872 1586 1587 596 949 1250 1455 812 227 58 1281 1162 879 1301 989 424 422 838 1007 461