California v. Brown

Background

The State of California asked Justice Rehnquist to halt enforcement of a 1980 death sentence while it seeks Supreme Court review. The California Supreme Court had invalidated the sentence because a sentencing instruction told jurors not to be swayed by “mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling,” which that court viewed as incompatible with cases requiring juries to consider any mitigating evidence. The state’s death-penalty statute and the jury instructions also expressly allowed broad mitigation evidence. The California remittitur was filed on February 3, and state law would bar seeking death if no new penalty trial occurred within 60 days (by April 4).

Reasoning

The central question was whether the challenged jury instruction violated the Eighth Amendment rule that sentencers must be allowed to consider mitigating evidence. Justice Rehnquist explained that California’s statute and the instructions informed jurors to consider mitigation and that the admonition against being swayed by mere emotion focused jurors on reasoned evidence. He concluded the California court relied on federal constitutional concerns so the Supreme Court may review the decision. Noting the State showed it would suffer irreparable harm under the 60-day rule and that he believed four Justices would likely grant review and reverse, he granted the requested stay while the Court considers the State’s petition for review (a request that the Supreme Court take the case).

Real world impact

The stay pauses enforcement of the California Supreme Court’s judgment and preserves the State’s right to seek the death penalty while review is pending. The defendant’s underlying murder conviction remains intact, but the penalty determination is delayed. This order is temporary and does not decide the ultimate legality of the instruction; the Supreme Court may later accept or reject review and either uphold or overturn the state court’s ruling.