People v. LaValle

Last updated

People v. LaValle
Seal of the New York Court of Appeals.svg
Court New York Court of Appeals
Full case nameThe People of New York v. Stephen S. LaValle
DecidedJune 24, 2004
Citation(s)3 N.Y.3d 88
Case history
Prior historyDefendant convicted, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co.
Holding
The current statute of capital punishment in the state of New York was unconstitutional as it violated article one, section six of the state constitution.
Court membership
Chief judge Judith Kaye
Associate judges Robert S. Smith, George Bundy Smith, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Albert Rosenblatt, Victoria A. Graffeo, Susan Phillips Read
Case opinions
MajorityG. Smith, joined by Kaye, Ciparick
ConcurrenceRosenblatt
DissentR. Smith, joined by Graffeo, Read
Laws applied
N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6; N.Y. C.P.L. § 400.27(10)

People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004), was a landmark decision by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the U.S. state of New York, in which the court ruled that the state's death penalty statute was unconstitutional because of the statute's direction on how the jury was to be instructed in case of deadlock. New York has since then abandoned the death penalty, as the law has not been amended.

Contents

Background of the case

Stephen LaValle, who raped, sexually molested, and murdered high-school track coach Cynthia Quinn (stabbed seventy-three times with a screwdriver) during her Sunday morning jog was tried and convicted by a lower court of rape and murder in the first degree. The Supreme Court of Suffolk County sentenced him to death. LaValle largely argued the case himself (despite a complete lack of legal training), after a falling out between him and his two attorneys; they wanted to take the case in different directions. The case was eventually appealed to the highest court in New York State.

Court of Appeals decision

LaValle argued that his death sentence had been improperly imposed on two grounds. First, he alleged that one of the jurors (juror 16) had been biased against him from the beginning, and that during voir dire the juror had expressed an inclination towards assigning the death penalty to rapists and murderers. LaValle also argued that the emotional testimony of Quinn's husband was largely irrelevant to the case, and served only to earn him a harsher sentence from the jury.

While the court upheld LaValle's conviction, citing "overwhelming evidence of guilt" to support it (largely based on LaValle's own confession as well as eyewitness testimony), the court did invalidate the death sentence, on the grounds that it violated Article 1, Section 6 of the New York Constitution.

The Court held that Section 400.27(10) of the New York Criminal Procedure Law was unconstitutional. That section addressed what would happen if a jury deadlocked on the penalty to be imposed: life without the possibility of parole, or death. In that circumstance, the trial judge would be empowered to sentence the defendant to as little as 20 years to life or as much as life without parole. Moreover, the statute required the judge to instruct the jury as to what would occur if they deadlocked.

The Court found that such an instruction could have a coercive effect on jurors who believed life without parole was the appropriate sentence, but feared that if they stuck to their vote and a deadlock resulted the defendant could be eligible for parole in as little as twenty years. This potential for coercion violated the due process clause of the New York State Constitution. The court further held that some instruction as to the consequence of deadlock was required by the due process clause, but that it was for the legislature, not the court, to provide a new instruction.

Effects

The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Suffolk County with instructions that a new sentence be imposed: either 20 or 25 years to life, or life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. The death sentences of New York's other two death-row inmates were also invalidated.

In April 2007, there were talks by state officials of the Republican Party, notably former State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, to reinstate a state death penalty that permits its usage for "cop-killers." Former governor Eliot Spitzer expressed agreement with the intention of the legislation, but did not actually express support for passing it. Former governor David Paterson did not take a position, but according to state senator Liz Krueger, Paterson has always been against capital punishment. [1]

In October 2007, the New York Court of Appeals decided People v. John Taylor [2] which involved the last inmate on New York's Death Row (see Wendy's massacre). In that case, the District Attorney of Queens County sought to carve an exception to Lavalle, but the court rejected that effort.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment regulating forms of punishment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment serves as a limitation upon the state or federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), was a landmark criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated all then existing legal constructions for the death penalty in the United States. It was 5–4 decision, with each member of the majority writing a separate opinion. Following Furman, in order to reinstate the death penalty, states had to at least remove arbitrary and discriminatory effects in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in California</span> Legal penalty in the US state of California

In the U.S. state of California, capital punishment is a legal penalty. However it is not allowed to be carried out as of June 2023, because executions were halted by an official moratorium ordered by Governor Gavin Newsom. Prior to the moratorium, executions were frozen by a federal court order since 2006, and the litigation resulting in the court order has been on hold since the promulgation of the moratorium. Thus, there will be a court-ordered moratorium on executions after the termination of Newsom's moratorium if capital punishment remains a legal penalty in California by then.

The U.S. state of Washington enforced capital punishment until the state's capital punishment statute was declared null and void and abolished in practice by a state Supreme Court ruling on October 11, 2018. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional as applied due to racial bias however it did not render the wider institution of capital punishment unconstitutional and rather required the statute to be amended to eliminate racial biases. From 1904 to 2010, 78 people were executed by the state; the last was Cal Coburn Brown on September 10, 2010. In April 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed SB5087 which formally abolished capital punishment in Washington State and removed provisions for capital punishment from state law.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628, was a landmark case in the state of California that outlawed capital punishment for nine months until the enactment of a constitutional amendment reinstating it, Proposition 17.

The Wendy's massacre was a mass murder that took place in a Wendy's fast-food restaurant at 40-12 Main Street in Flushing, New York, on May 24, 2000. Seven employees were shot in the head and five of them died. The killings were committed by former Wendy's employee John Taylor along with Craig Godineaux, who had planned to rob the restaurant's safe. Taylor was subsequently sentenced to death, while Godineaux was sentenced to life in prison. After the shooting, the Wendy’s location was closed and boarded up until it was eventually re-opened as a shopping center.

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007), was a case dealing with jury selection in capital cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome demur about capital punishment and be open to voting to impose a death sentence.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in Florida</span> Overview of the use of capital punishment in the U.S. state of Florida

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in New York (state)</span> Aspect of criminal justice

Capital punishment was outlawed in New York after the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, declared the practice as currently practiced unconstitutional under the state's constitution in 2004. However certain crimes occurring in the state that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government are subject to the federal death penalty.

Spaziano v. Florida was two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the imposition of the death penalty. In the first case, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981), the Supreme Court, with two dissents, refused Spaziano's petition for certiorari. However, the Florida Supreme Court would reverse Spaziano's death sentence based on the judge's receipt of a confidential report which was not received by either party. On remand, the judge reimposed the death penalty and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the sentence. In the second case, 468 U.S. 447 (1984), the Court heard Spaziano's appeal of his death sentence.

The United States Constitution contains several provisions related to criminal sentencing.

In the United States and other nations that use jury trials, a judicial override is when a judge overrules a jury's sentencing determination.

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that, where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.

Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (1987), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a mandatory death penalty for a prison inmate who is convicted of murder while serving a life sentence without possibility of parole is unconstitutional. The decision in this case was a significant development in the Court's capital punishment jurisprudence, further clarifying the limits on the application of the death penalty in the United States.

References

  1. "David Paterson to Become First African American Gov in NY History, First Blind Gov in US History". Democracy Now! .
  2. People v. John Taylor

Further reading