Smith v. Texas (2007)

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Smith v. Texas
ArgueDate=January 17
ArgueYear=2007
DecideDate=April 25
DecideYear=2007
FullName=LaRoyce Lathair Smith v. Texas
CitationNew=
Docket=
USVol=550
USPage=
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding=Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed
SCOTUS=2007
Majority=Kennedy
JoinMajority=Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence=Souter
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Dissent=Alito
JoinDissent=Roberts, Scalia, Thomas
LawsApplied=Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Smith v. Texas", 550 U.S. ___ (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about a challenge to a Texas death penalty court procedure. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, holding 5-4 that the Texas procedure was improper. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent.

Facts and procedural history

LaRoyce Lathair Smith was convicted of capital murder in the 1991 murder of a Dallas Taco Bell employee. [cite news |first=Jordan |last=Smith |title=Supremes: What'd We Say? |url=http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A238568 |publisher=Austin Chronicle |date=2004-11-19 |accessdate=2008-01-10 ] He was sentenced to death by a jury in Dallas County, Texas. In 2004, the Supreme Court overturned his death sentence because of an improper jury instruction and sent the case back to Texas state court. [See "Smith I", 543 U.S. 37 (2004).] After the case was remanded, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that Smith’s pre-trial objections did not preserve the claim of constitutional error he asserted. "Under the Texas framework for determining whether an instructional error merits reversal, the state court explained, this procedural default required Smith to show egregious harm — a burden the court held he did not meet." ["Smith II", 550 U.S. at ___ (2007).] Smith appealed, and the Court granted "certiorari". Smith's attorneys for the appeal included four retired federal appeals court judges. [cite news |first=Robert|last=Barnes|title=High Court Hears 3 Death Penalty Cases |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701821_pf.html |publisher=Washington Post |date=2007-01-18 |accessdate=2008-01-10 ]

Decision

Issue

The Court granted "certiorari" on two issues.
#Was the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals correct in holding that the improper jury instruction was harmless error and not sufficient to invalidate his death sentence?
#Was the Texas court correct to require a standard of "egregious harm" when evaluating whether an unconstitutional jury instruction should invalidate a death sentence?

Opinion of the Court

Justice Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, held that the Texas Court "misunderstood the interplay of [previous death penalty decisions,] and it mistook which of Smith’s claims furnished the basis for this Court’s opinion in "Smith I." These errors of federal law led the state court to conclude Smith had not preserved at trial the claim this Court vindicated in Smith I, even when the Court of Criminal Appeals previously had held Smith’s claim ... was preserved. The state court’s error of federal law cannot be the predicate for requiring Smith to show egregious harm."

Having resolved the second issue in Smith's favor, the Court did not address the first issue.

Concurrence

Justice Souter issued a brief concurrence, adding only that "in some later case, we may be required to consider whether harmless error review is ever appropriate in a case with error as described in "Penry v. Lynaugh". We do not and need not address that question here." [Internal citation omitted.]

Dissent

Justice Alito dissented, stating that the issue was one of ordinary state procedure, and that Smith had indeed failed to raise any objection to the jury instruction. "Accordingly," he wrote, "I would dismiss for want of jurisdiction."

External links

* [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-11304.pdf Smith v. Texas at SupremeCourtUs.gov] (docket information)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/5-11304.ZS.html full text] (HTML with links to precedent, statutes, and U.S. Constitution)

Notes