McKoy v. North Carolina

Background

Dock McKoy, a man convicted of first-degree murder in Stanly County, North Carolina, faced a separate jury sentencing process. The trial judge gave a four-question verdict form that required the jury to unanimously find each listed aggravating or mitigating circumstance before it could be treated as proved. The jury unanimously found two aggravating factors and two mitigating circumstances but did not unanimously find several other mitigating facts; it then concluded the unanimously found mitigation did not outweigh aggravation and recommended death.

Reasoning

The Court compared North Carolina’s unanimity rule to Mills v. Maryland and to earlier cases that require sentencers to be allowed to consider all relevant mitigation. It said the unanimity rule let a single juror block the jury from giving effect to mitigating evidence that the other jurors considered persuasive. Because that barrier risked arbitrary death sentences by preventing full consideration of mitigation, the Court held the rule unconstitutional, vacated McKoy’s death sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Real world impact

The decision requires that juries not be barred from using mitigating evidence simply because every juror does not agree on a labeled factor. In practice, North Carolina must allow sentencers to consider all mitigation in deciding death, and McKoy will receive a new sentencing proceeding; similar state procedures may need revision to avoid the same constitutional flaw. The ruling rests on prior death-penalty precedents and leaves open other procedural differences.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices joined the judgment for narrower reasons: Justice White said the opinion does not forbid rules requiring preponderance proof; Justice Kennedy concurred based on the statute’s potential for arbitrary results; Justice Scalia (joined by two others) dissented, arguing unanimity requirements and North Carolina’s special-verdict structure were constitutional.