Calhoun v. Maryland

Background

A man named James Calhoun was sentenced to death in Maryland and asked the nation’s highest court to review the state court’s decision about his punishment. Maryland’s statute and the trial jury instruction said death should be imposed if mitigating circumstances do not outweigh aggravating circumstances. The Maryland Court of Appeals had interpreted that law and concluded the defendant was not assigned the burden of proof at sentencing. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case and denied review.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Supreme Court would review whether Maryland’s sentencing law and jury instruction improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant during the sentencing phase. The Court refused to hear the case and issued no majority opinion deciding the underlying constitutional issues. Because the high Court denied review, it did not resolve disputes over how the statute should be read or whether the burden placement violates the Constitution. Two Justices explained in dissent why they would have taken the case and reached a different outcome.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to review, the defendant’s death sentence remains in effect and the Maryland courts’ rulings stand for now. The key constitutional question about who must prove whether aggravating facts outweigh mitigating facts at sentencing is unresolved by the high court. The denial leaves lower-court rulings and state procedures controlling how future sentencing hearings are conducted in Maryland for now. Any final change would require the Supreme Court to accept a future case or for state courts or lawmakers to alter the law.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan said he would grant review and vacate the death sentence because he believes the death penalty is always unconstitutional. Justice Marshall argued the statute and instruction would force defendants to bear the burden of proof at sentencing and would also grant review.