Supreme Court of the United States
Graham v. Collins
January 25, 1993506 U.S. 461
Summary
The Supreme Court held that Gary Graham's claim that his capital sentencing jury could not give adequate Eighth Amendment effect to mitigating evidence of his youth, family background, and positive character traits under Texas's three special issues is barred by Teague v. Lane, because announcing the rule he seeks would be a new rule not dictated by precedent existing when his conviction became final in 1984. Reasonable jurists could have read Jurek, Lockett, Eddings, and Franklin as sustaining the special-issues scheme, and Penry did not dictate relief because Graham's evidence, unlike Penry's, bore mitigating relevance to the future-dangerousness issue; neither Teague exception applied. The Court accordingly affirmed the Fifth Circuit's en banc judgment denying federal habeas relief. Justice Thomas concurred to argue that Penry was wrongly decided and should be overruled; Justice Stevens dissented, defending the mitigating-evidence line as a safeguard against racial discrimination; and Justice Souter, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, and O'Connor, dissented, concluding Penry controlled and would have vacated the death sentence.
Holding
- Whether the relief Graham seeks would require announcement of a new rule of constitutional law under Teague v. Lane.. Yes. The rule Graham seeks—that a defendant is entitled to special instructions whenever he can offer mitigating evidence with arguable relevance beyond the special issues—is not dictated by precedent existing at the time his conviction became final on September 10, 1984, and is therefore a new rule that cannot be announced on collateral review.
- Whether the new rule Graham seeks falls within either Teague exception to the new-rule principle.. No. The first exception is inapplicable because the rule would neither decriminalize a class of conduct nor prohibit the imposition of capital punishment on a particular class of persons; the second is inapplicable because denying special jury instructions on youth, family background, and positive character traits did not seriously diminish the likelihood of obtaining an accurate determination in the sentencing proceeding.
Docket 91-7580
Cited authorities
- Tex. Code Ann. § 19.03
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
- 85 Mich. L. Rev. 1741
- 4 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 158
- 28 U.S.C. § 994
- 28 U.S.C. § 994