Ayers v. Belmontes (2006)
- Docket
- 05-493
- Decided
- 2006-01-01
Summary
Question: 1) Is an "unadorned" factor (k) instruction sufficient to inform a jury that it must consider any mitigating evidence that a defendant may present concerning his probability of rehabilitation and good behavior as a prisoner? 2) Is the Ninth Circuit's ruling that factor (k) is constitutionally inadequate a "new constitutional rule of criminal procedure," in which case it would not be applied retroactively to other defendants whose cases are already final? Conclusion: Yes and unanswered. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the factor (k) instruction, allowing Belmontes's death sentence to go forward. The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy held that "The factor (k) instruction is consistent with the constitutional right to present mitigating evidence in capital sentencing proceedings." Following the analysis in Boyde v. California , the Justices ruled that there was no reasonable likelihood that the jury had misunderstood the instruction. The Court held that the jurors had interpreted factor (k) as a broad catch-all under which they could consider forward-looking mitigating factors such as the possibility of rehabilitation. Since the jury had considered all of Belmontes's mitigating evidence before his sentencing, the sentence was constitutional.