THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 17 - CHAPTER 303
Go to Volume 17 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 303 Table of Contents

303.17 Death Penalty: Appellate Review Of Sentencing Determination

    303.17.1 Right To Meaningful Appellate Review
    303.17.2 Review Required In Nonweighing State
    303.17.3 Review Of Invalid Or Insufficient Aggravating Factors

    THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 17 - CHAPTER 303

PRACTICE NOTE: To satisfy the 8th Amendment, a capital sentencing statute must provide for appellate review of the death sentence. (See Jurek v. Texas (1976) 428 US 262, 268-276 [96 SCt 2950; 49 LEd2d 929] [upholding Texas statute limiting capital homicides to intentional and knowing murders committed in five specified situations, and creating sentencing procedure that requires jury in penalty phase of bifurcated trial to answer three questions affirmatively in order to sentence death, and also providing for expedited review by state court]; Proffitt v. Florida (1976) 428 US 242, 251 [96 SCt 2960; 49 LEd2d 913] [upholding Florida statute requiring sentencing judge, after bifurcated trial and advisory jury verdict, to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances when determining death sentence and set forth these findings in writing, and also providing for automatic review by state supreme court of all death sentences]; Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 US 153, 193-206 [96 SCt 2909; 49 LEd2d 859] [upholding Georgia statute requiring sentencing judge or jury, in bifurcated trial, to find at least one of ten statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt when sentencing death, to consider any additional mitigating or aggravating evidence, and to specify aggravating circumstance(s) found, and also providing for direct review by state supreme court of appropriateness of all death sentences].)

    See also NCJIC 300.1.14 [Due Process On Appeal: Applicability Of Federal Due Process To Appeal].

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 17 - CHAPTER 303

PRACTICE NOTE: See Zant v. Stephens (1983) 462 US 862, 875 [103 SCt 2733; 77 LEd2d 235] [holding based on Jurek v. Texas (1976) 428 US 262, 268-276 [96 SCt 2950; 49 LEd2d 929] that standards for balancing aggravating against mitigating circumstances not required, but appellate review by state needed in the alternative].

    See also Capital Punishment Handbook [4.9.1 Weighing Or Nonweighing By Sentencing Body].

See Capital Punishment Handbook [4.9.1a. Weighing Or Nonweighing By Sentencing Body: General Principles And Authorities].

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 17 - CHAPTER 303

    303.17.3    Review Of Invalid Or Insufficient Aggravating Factors

APPELLATE PRACTICE NOTE: "[O]nly constitutional harmless-error analysis or reweighing at the trial or appellate level suffices to guarantee that the defendant received an individualized sentence." (Stringer v. Black (1992) 503 US 222, 232 [112 SCt 1130; 117 LEd2d 367].) "Where the death sentence has been infected by a vague or otherwise constitutionally invalid aggravating factor, the state Appellate Court or some other state sentencer must actually perform a new sentencing calculus if the sentence is to stand." (Richmond v. Lewis (1992) 506 US 40, 48 [113 SCt 528; 121 LEd2d 411]; see also Clemons v. Mississippi (1990) 494 US 738, 745 [110 SCt 1441; 108 LEd2d 725].)