Sharp v. Texas

1988-10-03

Headline: Court denies review in Texas death-penalty case, leaving a condemned man’s sentence in place despite dissents about using unproven crimes at sentencing.

Holding: The Court declined to review a Texas death-penalty case, leaving the conviction and sentence in place while dissenting Justices urged review of unproven allegations used at sentencing.

Real World Impact:

Leaves a Texas death sentence intact without Supreme Court review.
Allows the contested sentencing evidence about an unindicted alleged killing to remain in the record.
Shows the Court declined to address broader constitutional questions raised by dissenting Justices.

Topics: death penalty, capital sentencing, unproven criminal allegations, sentencing evidence, Supreme Court review

Summary

Background

Michael Eugene Sharp was convicted of murder in Texas and sentenced to death. At the sentencing stage, the State introduced testimony from Detective Jerry Smith that Sharp, while in custody, told Smith where to find the body of Blanca Arreola, a missing Texas woman. Smith said he did not know Arreola’s cause of death and that Sharp had not been and was not expected to be indicted for that death. The prosecutor later referred to Arreola’s death as evidence of Sharp’s future dangerousness.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to grant review of the case, effectively leaving the Texas conviction and death sentence in place. The opinion denying review contains no majority discussion of the evidentiary question raised in the sentencing phase. Two Justices dissented from the denial, arguing the Court should have taken the case to consider whether the Constitution bars using unadjudicated criminal allegations at a capital sentencing because of the special need for reliability.

Real world impact

By refusing review, the Court allowed the lower-court outcome and the sentencing record to stand in this case. That means the disputed testimony and the prosecutor’s references to the unproven allegation remain part of the official record and the death sentence remains effective for now. The denial is not a final ruling on the wider constitutional question; the issue could be raised again in a different case or posture.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall urged review both because he believes the death penalty is always unconstitutional and because admitting unproven allegations at sentencing threatens reliability; Justice Brennan would also have granted review and vacated the sentence.