## Facts

- Marcelino Ramos was tried in California for first-degree murder with a “special circumstance” (murder committed during a robbery).
- Under California law, the available punishments were death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
- California used a bifurcated proceeding: a guilt phase followed by a separate penalty phase if guilt and a special circumstance were found.
- At the penalty phase, the trial judge gave the statutorily required “Briggs Instruction” informing the jury that a life-without-parole sentence may be commuted by the Governor to a sentence that includes the possibility of parole.
- The jury imposed a sentence of death.

## Issues

1. Whether the Federal Constitution prohibits instructing a capital sentencing jury that life imprisonment without possibility of parole may be commuted by the Governor to a sentence allowing parole.
2. Whether giving that instruction violates the Eighth Amendment by deflecting the jury from an individualized determination of whether the defendant should live or die.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held the Federal Constitution does not forbid an instruction permitting the jury to consider the Governor’s commutation power.
- The Court held the instruction did not inject constitutionally impermissible speculation or reduce the reliability of the sentencing decision.
- The Court held the instruction did not violate the Eighth Amendment requirement of individualized sentencing.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A state may accurately and neutrally inform a capital sentencing jury that a life-without-parole sentence may be commuted by the Governor to a parole-eligible sentence.
- The jury may consider future dangerousness, including the possibility that the defendant could return to society if a sentence is commuted, as part of the penalty decision.
- Providing accurate, known, and contestable information about the sentencing framework does not create the type of unrebuttable or secret basis for sentencing that violates due process reliability requirements.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld California’s use of the Briggs Instruction, concluding that advising jurors about the Governor’s commutation power neither undermines due process reliability nor defeats the Eighth Amendment’s individualized sentencing requirement in capital cases.


California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 (1983)