Willis v. Balkcom, Warden

Background

A man convicted of murder in Georgia was sentenced to death by a jury, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed that conviction and sentence. The jury found three listed aggravating facts: that the murder was outrageously vile (involving torture or depravity), that the victim was a peace officer, and that the killing was to avoid or interfere with an arrest. The petitioner challenged only the first aggravating finding in a state habeas corpus proceeding (a post-conviction review), arguing the jury instructions on that ground were constitutionally defective.

Reasoning

The central question raised by the dissent was whether the trial judge’s instruction—simply repeating the statutory language about “outrageously or wantonly vile” murders—gave the jury enough guidance to avoid arbitrary death sentences. The dissent relied on this Court’s recent decision in Godfrey v. Georgia, which held that merely reciting that language can be too vague. The state court had refused relief because other unchallenged aggravating findings existed. The dissenting Justice argued that, because the jury must be unanimous and each aggravating fact can influence jurors differently, the court could not be sure the faulty instruction did not contribute to the death verdict.

Real world impact

The Supreme Court denied review and left the state conviction and death sentence intact. That means the sentence remains in effect unless another court later orders a change. This decision is not a full ruling on whether the instruction was unconstitutional; it is a refusal to take the case, so the question could be decided in future proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) dissented and would have granted review and vacated the death sentence; Justice Stewart joined most of that view and would also have ordered resentencing by a properly instructed jury.