Howell v. Mississippi
The Supreme Court dismissed this death penalty case without deciding the underlying constitutional question, ruling that the inmate had never properly told the Mississippi Supreme Court he was making a federal claim.
Because the inmate's brief to the state court cited only state cases and never mentioned the U.S. Constitution or the relevant Supreme Court precedent, the Court held it lacked the power to review the claim at all, regardless of its merits.
How it got here: The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence; Howell sought certiorari, and the Court asked the parties to also address whether his federal claim was properly raised below.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Marlon Howell was convicted and sentenced to death in Mississippi for shooting a newspaper delivery man, Hugh David Pernell, during what prosecutors said was an attempted robbery. At trial, Howell asked for jury instructions on manslaughter and simple murder as lesser alternatives to capital murder, but the trial court refused, and the jury convicted him of capital murder and imposed a death sentence.
The question before the Court
Could the Supreme Court decide whether Mississippi wrongly denied a death-row inmate's request for a lesser-offense jury instruction, when he never clearly told the state court he was raising a federal constitutional claim?
Why it matters
The decision underscores that death-row inmates and other litigants must explicitly flag federal constitutional claims in state court — citing the Constitution, a case interpreting it, or labeling the claim 'federal' — or risk losing the chance for Supreme Court review entirely, no matter how strong the underlying argument might be.
What changes now
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted, meaning the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision affirming Howell's conviction and death sentence stands. The Supreme Court never reached the merits of whether Mississippi's refusal to give a lesser-included-offense instruction violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, leaving that constitutional question unresolved for future cases where it is properly raised.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Mississippi's refusal to instruct the jury on manslaughter or simple murder actually violated the Constitution. It decided only that it lacked authority to reach that question because the claim was not properly presented as a federal one in state court.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Federal law lets the Supreme Court review a state court's final judgment only when a federal constitutional right was specifically raised in and addressed or properly presented to that state court, a jurisdictional-style rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
- The Court reviewed Howell's brief to the Mississippi Supreme Court and found he cited only state cases, never the U.S. Constitution or any decision directly interpreting it, and never labeled his claim as a federal one.
- Howell argued he had indirectly raised the federal claim because one of his cited state cases quoted another case that quoted a third case which mentioned Beck v. Alabama, the controlling capital-sentencing precedent; the Court found this chain of citations too attenuated to count as properly presenting a federal claim.
- The Court also rejected the argument that Mississippi's lesser-included-offense rule was identical to the federal Beck rule, noting Mississippi's rule applies more broadly, including in non-capital cases and even when life imprisonment remains an option, unlike Beck.
- Because the presentation requirement was not satisfied even under a lenient, non-jurisdictional reading, the Court concluded there was no valid basis to reach the merits of the constitutional claim.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Beck v. Alabama (447 U. S. 625)
The Court found Mississippi's lesser-included-offense rule is not identical to the constitutional rule from this case.