Delo v. Lashley

1993-04-26

Headline: Death‑penalty ruling lets Missouri courts refuse a jury instruction about having no prior criminal history when no supporting evidence is offered, affecting a 17‑year‑old convict's mitigation claim.

Holding: The Court held that a state trial judge may refuse a jury instruction that a defendant's lack of prior criminal history is a mitigating factor when no supporting evidence is presented, so the death sentence may stand.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to withhold mitigation instruction without supporting evidence.
Forces defense to present witnesses or reports to secure "no prior history" mitigation.
Affects capital sentencing practice and defense strategy in many states.

Topics: death penalty, capital sentencing, mitigating factors, youth offenders, presumption of innocence

Summary

Background

Respondent Frederick Lashley, about 17 when he killed and robbed his 55‑year‑old cousin, was convicted of capital murder in Missouri and sentenced to death. At sentencing his lawyer asked the judge to tell the jury that "no significant history of prior criminal activity" is a mitigating circumstance under Missouri law. Counsel did not put forward proof of a clean past, partly because she feared opening the door to juvenile or other records. The trial judge refused the instruction without supporting evidence, and a divided federal appeals court later granted relief.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a court must give a mitigating instruction about having no prior criminal history when there is no evidence to support it. The Court held that the Constitution does not require such an instruction in the absence of supporting evidence. The majority explained that states may demand some evidence before submitting mitigating instructions and reversed the Court of Appeals, finding no constitutional error in the judge's refusal.

Real world impact

The ruling means capital defendants generally cannot force juries to consider a "no prior history" mitigation unless some supporting evidence is offered. Defense teams may need to proffer witnesses or reports even when they fear adverse admissions or juvenile‑record issues. States keep the authority to set procedural rules about what evidence justifies a mitigating instruction.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Blackmun) dissented, arguing that the presumption of innocence and Missouri rules barring juvenile records should have allowed the instruction when the record was silent, and that denying relief to a youthful defendant is especially troubling.