Sharp v. Texas

Background

Michael Eugene Sharp was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Texas. At the penalty phase, the State introduced testimony from Detective Jerry Smith that Sharp, while in custody, had 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 likely would not be indicted for her death. Defense counsel objected, and the prosecutor repeatedly referred to what it called Arreola’s murder when arguing Sharp’s future dangerousness.

Reasoning

The central question presented in the dissents was whether it is proper to use unproven allegations of other crimes during sentencing in a death-penalty case. The Court declined to take the case and denied review, leaving the state-court conviction and death sentence in place. Two Justices wrote separately in dissent, saying they would have granted review. Justice Marshall emphasized the special need for reliability in capital sentencing and would have addressed whether the Constitution forbids admitting unadjudicated criminal allegations at that stage. Justice Brennan reiterated his view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional and said he would vacate the sentence.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the Texas conviction and death sentence remain in effect for now, and the use of those unproven allegations at sentencing goes unreviewed by this Court. This decision is not a definitive ruling on whether such evidence is constitutional in capital cases; that question could return to the Court in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Both dissents argued for Court review: Brennan would overturn the death sentence on his view that capital punishment is always unconstitutional; Marshall would review specifically to decide whether admitting unadjudicated allegations at sentencing violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.