Turner v. California

Background

Thaddaeus Turner, a man convicted of first-degree murder in California, was sentenced to death. On appeal he assembled an elaborate survey of published California Court of Appeal decisions claiming many similar defendants received lesser sentences. The California Supreme Court declined to review that comparative evidence, saying such proportionality review is not constitutionally required and citing this Court’s earlier decision in Pulley v. Harris. The United States Supreme Court denied review on January 14, 1991.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the Constitution requires a court to compare a death sentence to penalties imposed in similar cases. The California court relied on Pulley v. Harris, a 1984 decision this opinion cites as rejecting any constitutional requirement for such comparative review. The Supreme Court’s denial meant it declined to examine Turner’s detailed comparisons. Justice Marshall wrote a dissent saying Pulley was wrongly decided and that refusing to consider the evidence risks arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, Turner’s conviction and death sentence remain in effect and his comparative evidence was not reviewed by the high court. The decision does not settle whether comparative proportionality review is required and is not a final ruling on the constitutional question. Lower courts and state procedures cited here continue to follow Pulley, meaning many similar proportionality challenges may go unreviewed at the national level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented from the denial, urging the Court to reexamine Pulley, grant review, and remand for consideration of Turner’s survey; he also stated he would vacate the sentence because he believes the death penalty is always cruel and unusual punishment.