Smith v. Texas

Background

A man convicted of murdering a former co‑worker at a Taco Bell in Dallas County, Texas, was sentenced to death after a jury found the killing deliberate and that he posed a future danger. At sentencing the trial judge gave a supplemental “nullification” instruction telling jurors to consider any mitigating evidence but saying they could only give it effect by answering “No” to one of two written yes/no special questions about deliberateness and future dangerousness. The jury answered both questions “Yes” and imposed death. State courts denied relief and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the nullification instruction let the jury meaningfully weigh the defendant’s mitigation evidence — including low IQ scores, special‑education history, learning and speech problems, a troubled childhood, and his age of 19 at the time. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that this evidence was relevant and that the instruction forced jurors into an ethical dilemma: they would have to choose between following the written verdict form or the supplemental instruction. That conflict made the instruction an inadequate vehicle for giving full effect to mitigation.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the state appeals court and sent the case back for further proceedings. The decision means that juries in capital cases cannot be given the same sort of nullification instruction when it operates like the one here. Defendants who present mitigation evidence, including evidence of limited intellectual functioning or difficult backgrounds, must be given a workable way for jurors to consider that evidence.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented and would have affirmed the Texas court's judgment.