Tuilaepa v. California

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas, upheld California's capital-sentencing factors concerning the circumstances of the crime, prior violent criminal activity, and the defendant's age against Eighth Amendment vagueness challenges. Selection factors may direct jurors to relevant subjects without posing specific factual questions, and jurors need not receive instructions assigning particular weights to the evidence. The Court affirmed both California Supreme Court judgments without deciding the adequacy of California's death-eligibility provisions. Justice Scalia concurred separately, maintaining that the Eighth Amendment's distinctive procedural requirements end once eligibility has been adequately narrowed. Justice Souter concurred, emphasizing the factors' common-sense clarity. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurred in the judgment because relevant sentencing evidence need not be labeled aggravating or mitigating. Justice Blackmun dissented, maintaining both that capital punishment cannot be administered constitutionally and that the challenged factors insufficiently constrain discretion and permit arbitrary or racially influenced sentencing.