South v. South Carolina, 85-5186
Decision Date | 07 October 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 85-5186,85-5186 |
Citation | 106 S.Ct. 209,474 U.S. 888,88 L.Ed.2d 178 |
Parties | Robert W. SOUTH v. SOUTH CAROLINA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Last June, this Court held it "constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-329, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2639, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). In Caldwell, the prosecutor had urged the jury not to view its sentence recommendation as determining whether defendant would die because any death sentence would be reviewed by the State Supreme Court. "The argument was inaccurate, both because it was misleading as to the nature of the appellate court's review and because it depicted the jury's role in a way fundamentally at odds with the role that a capital sentencer must perform." Id., at 336, 105 S.Ct., at 2643.
Justice BLACKMUN would grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Supreme Court of South Carolina for further consideration in light of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985).
I believe the facts of this case similarly demand reversal. At petitioner's sentencing hearing, the prosecutor set the stage for the trial judge's instructions, noting:
" " App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a (emphasis supplied).
The jury returned a recommendation for death, and that sentence was accordingly imposed by the trial court. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court deferred to the "wide discretion" of the trial judge "regarding the propriety of the argument", id., at 6a, and refused to disturb his ruling. Seven days later, this Court handed down its decision in Caldwell.
In Caldwell, the prosecutor's specificity as to the alleged safeguards allowed this Court to assess the degree to which his remarks might have led the jury to "shift its sense of responsibility to an appellate court." 472 U.S., at 330, 105 S.Ct., at 2640. Such an assessment is impossible here because the prosecutor's vague assurances invited jurors to speculate freely...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Richmond v. American Systems Corp.
- Gray v. Com.
-
State v. Tucker
...300 S.C. at 502, 388 S.E.2d at 821. See also State v. South, 285 S.C. 529, 331 S.E.2d 775 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 888, 106 S.Ct. 209, 88 L.Ed.2d 178 (1985) (no abuse of discretion where judge carefully screened potential jurors before The record reflects that the judge took appropria......
-
Mu'Min v. Com.
...subsequently declared invalid); accord Poyner v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 401, 427, 329 S.E.2d 815, 830, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 888, 106 S.Ct. 208, 88 L.Ed.2d 178 (1985); Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 99, 110, 334 S.E.2d 838, 845 (1985), cert. denied 478 U.S. 1010, 106 S.Ct. 3309, 92 L.Ed.2d......