Farmer v. Sumner, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons

1989-02-27

Headline: Death-row inmate’s request for review denied; Court leaves his death sentence in place while a dissent urges vacating it over improper victim-impact testimony.

Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the death sentence intact while a dissent argued the admission of victim-impact testimony violated the Constitution.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the inmate’s death sentence in place after denying review.
Keeps unanswered whether victim-impact testimony must be removed in past cases.
Highlights that prosecutor statements about victims’ families can affect sentencing without Supreme Court review.

Topics: death penalty, victim impact testimony, retroactive rulings, court review of death sentences

Summary

Background

A man on death row asked the Court to review his sentence after his trial included testimony about the victim’s family suffering. At his sentencing the prosecutor described the victim’s mother’s emotional trauma, saying the defendant had “shattered some other lives psychologically” and describing “repeated nightmares” and crying. The Nevada Supreme Court refused to consider the new claim, saying the defendant had not raised it at trial and that the Court had not said the relevant ruling should apply to old cases.

Reasoning

The central question raised in the dissent is whether juries may consider victim-impact statements at capital sentencing and whether the earlier case that forbids such statements should apply to past trials. Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) says the prosecutor’s remarks were exactly the kind of emotional evidence the Court in Booth said was irrelevant. He argues the defendant should not be punished for failing to raise a claim that did not yet exist and that the Court should decide whether the Booth rule applies retroactively.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the defendant’s death sentence remains in place and the high court did not resolve whether Booth must be applied to older cases. The dissent warns that allowing the rule to be only prospective lets harmful victim-impact arguments influence some capital sentences without review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented, reiterating his view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional and arguing separately that this case warranted review to address Booth and retroactivity.