House v. Tennessee

1990-10-15

Headline: Death-row defendant’s challenge to jury instructions is blocked as the Court denies review, leaving a Tennessee death sentence in place despite a Justice warning those instructions likely barred jurors from considering non‑unanimous mitigation.

Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the state court’s death sentence intact, while Justice Marshall would have granted review and vacated the sentence because the jury instructions likely required unanimity on mitigating circumstances.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the Tennessee death sentence in place.
Highlights risk jurors were barred from considering non‑unanimous mitigation.
Gives defense counsel grounds for similar future appeals.

Topics: death penalty, jury instructions, mitigating evidence, capital sentencing, Tennessee law

Summary

Background

A man convicted of murder in Tennessee was sentenced to death. At the penalty phase the trial judge told jurors they had to be unanimous to find any aggravating circumstances, then told them to “consider as heretofore indicated any mitigating circumstances,” and the death verdict form required a unanimous finding that no mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating ones. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals found the instructions did not require unanimity and affirmed; the Supreme Court denied review.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the instructions and forms could reasonably be read to bar jurors from crediting mitigating evidence unless every juror agreed it existed. Justice Marshall, dissenting from the denial, relied on earlier cases (Mills and McKoy) and argued that the combination of a unanimity requirement for aggravating facts, the “as heretofore indicated” language, and the unanimous-verdict form would lead reasonable jurors to think mitigation required unanimity. He concluded there was a reasonable likelihood the jury so understood the instructions and would have granted review and reversed.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the specific Tennessee death sentence remained in place. The ruling leaves unresolved whether similar jury instructions will invalidate other death sentences. Defense lawyers may cite Justice Marshall’s critique in future appeals where instructions closely match those described here.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented and would have both granted review and vacated the sentence, saying the instructions created a reasonable likelihood jurors were prevented from considering non‑unanimous mitigating evidence.