Lockett v. Ohio

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that sentencing authorities must have the discretion to consider at least some mitigating factors, rather than being limited to a specific list of factors.[1]

Lockett v. Ohio
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 17, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978
Full case name	Lockett v. Ohio
Citations	438 U.S. 586 (more) 98 S. Ct. 2954; 57 L. Ed. 2d 973; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 133
Case history
Prior	State v. Lockett, 49 Ohio St. 2d 48, 358 N.E.2d 1062 (1976); cert. granted, 434 U.S. 889 (1977).
Holding
The Ohio statute violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in failing to require consideration of all mitigating factors surrounding the accused murderer before coming to the decision to apply the death penalty.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Majority	Burger (parts I and II), joined by Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
Plurality	Burger (part III), joined by Stewart, Powell, Stevens
Concurrence	Blackmun (in part and in judgment)
Concurrence	Marshall (in judgment)
Concur/dissent	White
Concur/dissent	Rehnquist
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. VIII, XIV

Background

An Ohio law required that the death penalty was mandatory for felons convicted of aggravated murder unless the victim had induced the offense, the offense was committed under duress or coercion, or the offense was a product of mental deficiencies. Sandra Lockett, the driver of the getaway car for a robbery that resulted in the murder of a pawnshop owner, was found guilty under the Ohio statute and sentenced to death.

Question Before the Court

Does the Ohio statute requiring the death penalty for felons convicted of aggravated murder violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by limiting the consideration of mitigating factors?

Opinion of the Court

With a 7-1 decision in favor of Lockett, Justice Burger wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments required, in all but the rarest cases, that sentencers consider all mitigating factors surrounding the accused murderer before coming to the decision of applying the death penalty. These mitigating factors include, "a defendant's character or record and any circumstances of the offense proffered as a reason for a sentence less than death." [2] Justice Burger, joined by Justice Stewart, Justice Powell and Justice Stevens concluded that "the limited range of mitigating circumstances that may be considered by the sentencer under the Ohio death penalty statute is incompatible with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments."[3] The Court cited Gregg,[4] when the Court had previously approved of a statute that permitted the jury to "consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances" to support their decision in Lockett[5]

Justice Blackmun's Concurrence

Justice Blackmun agreed with the majority of the opinion written by the Chief Justice, however he "would do so for a reason more limited than that which the plurality espouses, and for an additional reason not relied upon by the plurality."[6]

Justice Marshall's Concurrence

In a separate special concurrence from Justice Blackmun, Justice Marshall noted his opposition of the death penalty on its face, and deemed it a form of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Justice Marshall notes that "when a death sentence is imposed under the circumstances presented here, I fail to understand how any of my Brethren -- even those who believe that the death penalty is not wholly inconsistent with the Constitution -- can disagree that it must be vacated."[7]

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 438

References

1. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
2. "Lockett v. Ohio - 438 U.S. 586 (1978)". The Oyez Project: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
3. Lockett, 438 U.S. at 597-609.
4. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 206 (1976).
5. Lockett, 438 U.S. at 606.
6. Lockett, 438 U.S. at 613 (Blackmun, J., concurring).
7. Lockett, 438 U.S. at 620 (Marshall, J., concurring).

External links

• Text of Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) is available from:  Cornell  CourtListener  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio)