Bateman v. Arizona
Headline: Justice Rehnquist denies bail and stay for a man convicted of sexual crimes, refusing a one‑Justice halt because of standing and finality doubts and leaving his prison sentence in place.
Holding: The Justice denied the application for bail and for a stay of the state court’s mandate because the applicant failed to show standing, lacked a substantial chance of certiorari, and there were doubts about the judgment’s finality.
- Leaves the defendant’s prison sentence intact while review is sought.
- Makes one‑Justice stays of state high court mandates harder to obtain.
- Shows standing and finality doubts can block Supreme Court review.
Summary
Background
A man was convicted by a jury of sodomy with his wife and of forcing his wife to perform oral sex. The jury was told that consent was a defense, and the verdict necessarily implied the jury found no consent. After the trial judge briefly dismissed the charges on privacy grounds, state appellate courts reversed that dismissal and the Arizona Supreme Court ordered the trial court to enter a judgment of conviction and impose sentence. The man was sentenced to two to four years and his requests for bail were denied at the trial level and by the Arizona Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Justice considered the man’s request for bail or a stay of the Arizona court’s mandate while he seeks review in this Court. He denied the request because a single Justice must see a strong justification before stopping a state court process. The Justice identified two specific problems: serious doubts that the man could show he had the right to raise the particular constitutional question (because his conviction rested on nonconsensual conduct), and doubts about whether the state decision was a final judgment appropriate for this Court’s review. Taken together, these doubts made it unlikely four Justices would agree to hear the case, so a stay was not justified.
Real world impact
The denial leaves the state court’s judgment and the man’s sentence in place. It does not decide whether the Arizona statutes are unconstitutional for consensual married conduct; it is a procedural refusal to stay state enforcement pending possible Supreme Court review, not a final ruling on the law.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?