Rauf v. State

• Decision Date: 02 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 39, 2016,39, 2016
• Citation: 145 A.3d 430
• Parties: BENJAMIN RAUF, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff-Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

145 A.3d 430

BENJAMIN RAUF, Defendant-Appellant v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 39, 2016

SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

Submitted: June 15, 2016

August 2, 2016

Summaries:

Source: Justia

Delaware charged defendant Benjamin Rauf with one count of First Degree Intentional Murder, one count of First Degree Felony Murder, Possession of a Firearm During those Felonies, and First Degree Robbery. The State expressed its intention to seek the death penalty if Rauf was convicted on either of the First Degree Murder counts. In January 2016, the United States Supreme Court held in "Hurst v. Florida" that Florida's capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional. In light of the "Hurst" decision, the trial court in this matter certified five questions of law to the Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court to address the constitutionality of Delaware's state's death penalty statute; the Superior Court believed that Hurst "reflected an evolution of the law that raised serious questions about the continuing validity of Delaware's death penalty statute." After review, the Court concluded that Delaware's death penalty statute conflicted with the Sixth Amendment, and prior cases on the constitutionality of Delaware's capital sentencing scheme were overruled to the extent they were inconsistent with this opinion.

Certification of Question of Law from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. Cr. ID No 1509009858.

Questions answered.

Santino Ceccotti, Esquire (Argued), Ross A. Flockerzie, Esquire, David C. Skoranski Esquire, Office of the Public Defender, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.

Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, John R. Williams, Esquire, Sean P. Lugg, Esquire (Argued), Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee.

Elena C. Norman, Esquire, Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Esquire, Nicholas J. Rohrer Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Marc Bookman, Esquire, Atlantic Center for Capital Representation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae for the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation.

Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esquire, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; G. Ben Cohen, Esquire, The Promise of Justice Initiative, New Orleans, Louisiana, Amicus Curiae for the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.

Richard H. Morse, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware; Cassandra Stubbs, Esquire, Brian W. Stull, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project, Durham, North Carolina, Amicus Curiae for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Delaware and the American Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project.

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc. STRINE, Chief Justice, concurring in the Majority per curiam, with whom Justice HOLLAND and Justice SEITZ join. HOLLAND, Justice, concurring in the Majority per curiam, with whom Chief Justice STRINE and Justice SEITZ join. VAUGHN, Justice, dissenting.

OPINION

PER CURIAM of Chief Justice Strine, Justice Holland, and Justice Seitz:

The State has charged the Defendant, Benjamin Rauf with one count of First Degree Intentional Murder, one count of First Degree Felony Murder, Possession of a Firearm During those Felonies, and First Degree Robbery. The State has expressed its intention to seek the death penalty if Rauf is convicted on either of the First Degree Murder counts. On January 12, 2016, the United States Supreme Court held in Hurst v. Florida that Florida's capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional because " [t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death." ¹ On January 25, 2016, the Superior Court certified five questions of law to this Court for disposition in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 41. On January 28, 2016, this Court accepted revised versions of the questions certified by the Superior Court and designated Rauf as the appellant and the State as the appellee.²

In this case, we are asked to address important questions regarding the constitutionality of our state's death penalty statute. The Superior Court believed that Hurst reflected an evolution of the law that raised serious questions about the continuing validity of Delaware's death penalty statute. Specifically, Hurst prompted the question of whether our death penalty statute sufficiently respects a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

Because answering the certified questions requires us to interpret not simply the Sixth Amendment itself, but the complex body of case law interpreting it, we have a diversity of views on exactly why the answers to the questions are what we have found them to be. But that diversity of views is outweighed by the majority's collective view that Delaware's current death penalty statute violates the Sixth Amendment role of the jury as set forth in Hurst. We also have a shared belief that the importance of the subject to our state and our fellow citizens, reflected in the excellent briefs and arguments of the parties, makes it useful for all the Justices to bring our various perspectives to bear on these difficult questions.

For the sake of clarity, we set forth the five questions asked and the succinct answers to them.

Question One

Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, may a sentencing judge in a capital jury proceeding, independent of the jury, find the existence of " any aggravating circumstance," statutory or non-statutory, that has been alleged by the State for weighing in the selection phase of a capital sentencing proceeding?

No. Because Delaware's capital sentencing scheme allows the judge to do this,³ it is unconstitutional.

Question Two

If the finding of the existence of " any aggravating circumstance," statutory or non-statutory, that has been alleged by the State for weighing in the selection phase of a capital sentencing proceeding must be made by a jury, must the jury make the finding unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt to comport with federal constitutional standards?

Yes. The jury must make the finding unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the Delaware death penalty statute does not require juror unanimity,⁴ it is unconstitutional.

Question Three

Does the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution require a jury, not a sentencing judge, to find that the aggravating circumstances found to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances found to exist because, under 11 Del. C. § 4209, this is the critical finding upon which the sentencing judge " shall impose a sentence of death" ?

Yes. Because Delaware's death penalty statute does not require the jury to perform this function,⁵ it is unconstitutional.

Question Four

If the finding that the aggravating circumstances found to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances found to exist must be made by a jury, must the jury make that finding unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt to comport with federal constitutional standards?

Yes. We answer question four in the identical manner in which we have answered question two.

Question Five

If any procedure in 11 Del. C. § 4209's capital sentencing scheme does not comport with federal constitutional standards, can the provision for such be severed from the remainder of 11 Del. C. § 4209, and the Court proceed with instructions to the jury that comport with federal constitutional standards?

No. Because the respective roles of the judge and jury are so complicated under § 4209, we are unable to discern a method by which to parse the statute so as to preserve it. Because we see no way to sever § 4209, the decision whether to reinstate the death penalty--if our ruling ultimately becomes final--and under what procedures, should be left to the General Assembly.

Summary

This Court's prior cases on the constitutionality of Delaware's capital sentencing scheme are hereby overruled to the extent they are inconsistent with the answers in this opinion. Having answered the certified questions, the Clerk is directed to transmit the opinions in this matter to the Superior Court.

CONCUR

STRINE Chief Justice, concurring in the Majority per curiam, with whom Justice HOLLAND and Justice SEITZ join:

I.

I join with a majority of my colleagues in concluding that Delaware's current death penalty statute conflicts with the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The importance and complexity of the subject before us is illustrated by the somewhat different ways that each of us approach how the questions put to us should be answered and why they should be answered " yes," " no," or not answered in part. I agree with the succinct answers given to the five certified questions before us in the Majority's per curiam opinion, in which I happily and fully join. The questions posed involve the application of a fundamental constitutional right that is easy to state--the right to a trial by a jury--but that has been the subject of complex judicial explication during the past forty-four years since Furman v. Georgia ¹ made the administration of the death penalty a constant subject of federal constitutional rulings. Given these decisions and the compelling importance of the subjects we now must address, I therefore burden the interested reader with an explanation of how I reached the answers I did. The core of my reasoning, however, is as follows.

Distilled to their essence, the most critical of questions before us ask whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, rather than a judge, to make all of the factual findings in capital sentencing--including balancing those factors for itself in assessing whether death is the appropriate punishment--and, if so whether the jury must make such findings unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. Although I acknowledge that the meaning of Hurst v. Florida ² is contestable, it states that " [t]he ...