McNeil v. North Carolina

Background

A North Carolina defendant sentenced to death challenged his sentence after this Court decided McKoy v. North Carolina. The State Supreme Court had rejected the defendant’s challenge based on its earlier State v. McKoy decision. The petition asked the Court to review whether jury unanimity was required when jurors consider mitigating circumstances during capital sentencing.

Reasoning

The Court granted review, vacated the North Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of McKoy. The record shows that the particular jury instructions held unconstitutional in McKoy were not given at this defendant’s trial. The verdict form used at trial required unanimity for finding aggravating factors and for the weighing steps, but it did not require unanimity for finding mitigating factors. The Court said the state court should reconsider whether McKoy affects the prior decision, and that other procedural questions (like procedural default or harmlessness when no mitigating evidence was presented) remain open on remand.

Real world impact

On remand, the North Carolina Supreme Court can decide whether the absence of a unanimity instruction about mitigation requires changing the sentence. The ruling does not itself change the sentence; it directs the state court to reconsider in light of McKoy. That reconsideration could affect other cases with similar jury instructions or verdict forms in North Carolina.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy dissented from the Court’s action, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia, arguing that the record shows no unanimity requirement was involved and that certiorari should have been denied.