Hall v. Fla.

Decision Date27 May 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–10882.,12–10882.
Citation134 S.Ct. 1986,188 L.Ed.2d 1007,572 U.S. 701
Parties Freddie Lee HALL, Petitioner v. FLORIDA.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Seth P. Waxman, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Allen Winsor, Solicitor General, for Respondent.

Eric C. Pinkard, Counsel of Record, Tampa, FL, Mark E. Olive, Law Offices of Mark E. Olive P.A., Tallahassee, FL, Seth P. Waxman, Danielle Spinelli, Megan Barbero, Daniel T. Deacon, Matthew Guarnieri, Thomas G. Sprankling, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Carol M. Dittmar, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Diane G. DeWolf, Rachel E. Nordby, Leah A. Sevi, Osvaldo Vazquez, Deputy Solicitors General, Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

of Florida, Allen Winsor, Solicitor General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Court has held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution forbid the execution of persons with intellectual disability. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Florida law defines intellectual disability to require an IQ test score of 70 or less. If, from test scores, a prisoner is deemed to have an IQ above 70, all further exploration of intellectual disability is foreclosed. This rigid rule, the Court now holds, creates an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional.

I

On February 21, 1978, Freddie Lee Hall, petitioner here, and his accomplice, Mark Ruffin, kidnaped, beat, raped, and murdered Karol Hurst, a pregnant, 21–year–old newlywed. Afterward, Hall and Ruffin drove to a convenience store they planned to rob. In the parking lot of the store, they killed Lonnie Coburn, a sheriff's deputy who attempted to apprehend them. Hall received the death penalty for both murders, although his sentence for the Coburn murder was later reduced on account of insufficient evidence of premeditation. Hall v. Florida, 403 So.2d 1319, 1321 (Fla.1981) (per curiam ).

Hall argues that he cannot be executed because of his intellectual disability. Previous opinions of this Court have employed the term "mental retardation." This opinion uses the term "intellectual disability" to describe the identical phenomenon. See Rosa's Law, 124 Stat. 2643 (changing entries in the U.S. Code from "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability"); Schalock et al., The Renaming of Mental Retardation : Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability, 45 Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities 116 (2007). This change in terminology is approved and used in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, one of the basic texts used by psychiatrists and other experts; the manual is often referred to by its initials "DSM," followed by its edition number, e.g., "DSM–5." See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 33 (5th ed. 2013).

When Hall was first sentenced, this Court had not yet ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibits States from imposing the death penalty on persons with intellectual disability. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 340, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). And at the time, Florida law did not consider intellectual disability as a statutory mitigating factor.

After this Court held that capital defendants must be permitted to present nonstatutory mitigating evidence in death penalty proceedings, Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 398–399, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), Hall was resentenced. Hall then presented substantial and unchallenged evidence of intellectual disability. School records indicated that his teachers identified him on numerous occasions as "[m]entally retarded." App. 482–483. Hall had been prosecuted for a different, earlier crime. His lawyer in that matter later testified that the lawyer "[c]ouldn't really understand anything [Hall] said."Id., at 480. And, with respect to the murder trial given him in this case, Hall's counsel recalled that Hall could not assist in his own defense because he had " 'a mental ... level much lower than his age,' " at best comparable to the lawyer's 4–year–old daughter. Brief for Petitioner 11. A number of medical clinicians testified that, in their professional opinion, Hall was "significantly retarded," App. 507; was "mentally retarded," id., at 517; and had levels of understanding "typically [seen] with toddlers," id ., at 523.

As explained below in more detail, an individual's ability or lack of ability to adapt or adjust to the requirements of daily life, and success or lack of success in doing so, is central to the framework followed by psychiatrists and other professionals in diagnosing intellectual disability. See DSM–5, at 37. Hall's siblings testified that there was something "very wrong" with him as a child. App. 466. Hall was "slow with speech and ... slow to learn." Id., at 490. He "walked and talked long after his other brothers and sisters," id ., at 461, and had "great difficulty forming his words," id., at 467.

Hall's upbringing appeared to make his deficits in adaptive functioning all the more severe. Hall was raised—in the words of the sentencing judge—"under the most horrible family circumstances imaginable." Id., at 53. Although "[t]eachers and siblings alike immediately recognized [Hall] to be significantly mentally retarded ... [t]his retardation did not garner any sympathy from his mother, but rather caused much scorn to befall him." Id., at 20. Hall was "[c]onstantly beaten because he was 'slow' or because he made simple mistakes." Ibid. His mother "would strap [Hall] to his bed at night, with a rope thrown over a rafter. In the morning, she would awaken Hall by hoisting him up and whipping him with a belt, rope, or cord." Ibid. Hall was beaten "ten or fifteen times a week sometimes." Id., at 477. His mother tied him "in a 'croaker' sack, swung it over a fire, and beat him," "buried him in the sand up to his neck to 'strengthen his legs,' " and "held a gun on Hall ... while she poked [him] with sticks." Hall v. Florida, 614 So.2d 473, 480 (Fla.1993) (Barkett, C.J., dissenting).

The jury, notwithstanding this testimony, voted to sentence Hall to death, and the sentencing court adopted the jury's recommendation. The court found that there was "substantial evidence in the record" to support the finding that "Freddie Lee Hall has been mentally retarded his entire life." App. 46. Yet the court also "suspect[ed] that the defense experts [were] guilty of some professional overkill," because "[n]othing of which the experts testified could explain how a psychotic, mentally-retarded, brain-damaged, learning-disabled, speech-impaired person could formulate a plan whereby a car was stolen and a convenience store was robbed." Id., at 42. The sentencing court went on to state that, even assuming the expert testimony to be accurate, "the learning disabilities, mental retardation, and other mental difficulties ... cannot be used to justify, excuse or extenuate the moral culpability of the defendant in this cause." Id., at 56. Hall was again sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that "Hall's argument that his mental retardation provided a pretense of moral or legal justification" had "no merit." Hall, 614 So.2d, at 478. Chief Justice Barkett dissented, arguing that executing a person with intellectual disability violated the State Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Id., at 481–482.

In 2002, this Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the execution of persons with intellectual disability. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S., at 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242. On November 30, 2004, Hall filed a motion claiming that he had intellectual disability and could not be executed. More than five years later, Florida held a hearing to consider Hall's motion. Hall again presented evidence of intellectual disability, including an IQ test score of 71. (Hall had received nine IQ evaluations in 40 years, with scores ranging from 60 to 80, Brief for Respondent 8, but the sentencing court excluded the two scores below 70 for evidentiary reasons, leaving only scores between 71 and 80. See App. 107; 109 So.3d 704, 707 (Fla.2012) ). In response, Florida argued that Hall could not be found intellectually disabled because Florida law requires that, as a threshold matter, Hall show an IQ test score of 70 or below before presenting any additional evidence of his intellectual disability. App. 278–279 ("[U]nder the law, if an I.Q. is above 70, a person is not mentally retarded"). The Florida Supreme Court rejected Hall's appeal and held that Florida's 70–point threshold was constitutional. 109 So.3d, at 707–708.

This Court granted certiorari. 571 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 471, 187 L.Ed.2d 316 (2013).

II

The Eighth Amendment provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The Fourteenth Amendment applies those restrictions to the States. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) ; Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 239–240, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam ). "By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the government to respect the dignity of all persons." Roper, supra, at 572, 125 S.Ct. 1183; see also Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (plurality opinion) ("The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man").

The Eighth Amendment "is not fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice." Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 378, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). To enforce the Constitution's protection of human...

To continue reading

Request your trial
256 cases
  • Young v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 29 Junio 2020
    ... ... See Hall v. Florida , 572 U.S. 701, 704-05 (2014) (describing change from "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability"). 4. A claimant who is disabled ... ...
  • People v. Miles
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 28 Mayo 2020
    ... ... Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825, Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407, and Hall v. Florida (2014) 572 U.S. 701, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007. We recently rejected a similar argument premised on those same four decisions and ... ...
  • Davis v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 22 Febrero 2019
    ... ... [FN 2] The other part of the wooden dowel or closet rod was found in the upstairs hall closet. That same day, police officers obtained a search warrant and, over several days, executed it at appellant's house. The rooms on the second ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Huang
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 16 Febrero 2022
    ... ... Indeed, even Chialant's evaluation placed the defendant's IQ above the usual cutoff for intellectual disability. See Hall v. Florida , 572 U.S. 701, 720, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014). We therefore decline to consider whether the imposition of a life sentence ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • No Way To Run A Prison
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 18 Agosto 2022
    ...and gender identity.” Am. Psych. Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 71 (3d ed., rev. 1987) (DSM-III-R); see Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 704 (2014) (describing the DSM as “one of the basic texts used by psychiatrists and other experts”). We have recently recognized precisely this po......
17 books & journal articles
  • Trial issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1986, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ ( 2014). §15:106 Necessity Defense §15:106.1 Statutory Law Texas Penal Code §9.22. Necessity Conduct is justified if: (1) the ......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2019 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2019
    ...disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1986, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ ( 2014). §15:106 Necessity Defense §15:106.1 Statutory Law Texas Penal Code §9.22. Necessity Conduct is justified if: 15-123 T......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2020 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2020
    ...disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1986, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ ( 2014). §15:106 Necessity Defense §15:106.1 Statutory Law Texas Penal Code §9.22. Necessity Conduct is justified if: (1) the ......
  • CRIMINAL LAW: CAPITAL FELONY MERGER.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 111 No. 3, June 2021
    • 22 Junio 2021
    ...(2017) (finding Texas's method for determining which criminal offenders are intellectually disabled unconstitutional); Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (finding Florida's method for determining which criminal offenders are intellectually disabled unconstitutional); Atkins, 536 U.S. 304 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT