## Facts

- After *Furman v. Georgia* prompted states to revise capital sentencing, Texas enacted a new capital statute limiting death-eligible murder to intentional and knowing killings committed in five specified situations.
- Jerry Lane Jurek was convicted in Texas of a homicide falling within the statute’s capital categories.
- Following the guilty verdict, Texas held a separate sentencing proceeding requiring the jury to answer “special issues” addressing deliberateness, future dangerousness, and (if raised) provocation.
- If the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s answer to each applicable special issue was “yes,” the court was required to impose death; a “no” answer required a life sentence.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Jurek’s conviction and death sentence, construing the “continuing threat to society” issue to permit consideration of mitigating factors relating to the defendant and the offense.
- Jurek sought review, arguing the statute and resulting sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Issues

1. Whether the death penalty is per se cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether Texas’s capital-sentencing framework unconstitutionally permitted arbitrary imposition of death by failing to adequately narrow eligibility and guide jury discretion.
3. Whether the special-issue procedure sufficiently allowed jurors to consider mitigating evidence as required for capital sentencing.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment upholding Jurek’s death sentence (7–2).
- The Court held the death penalty is not per se unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Court held Texas’s statute constitutionally narrowed the class of death-eligible offenders by limiting capital murder to specified categories of intentional and knowing killings.
- The Court upheld the special-issue sentencing procedure as a constitutionally sufficient method of guiding the jury’s decision whether to impose death.
- Accepting the state court’s construction, the Court concluded the special issues permitted consideration of mitigating factors concerning the offender and the offense.

## Legal Principles

- Capital punishment is not categorically barred by the Eighth Amendment.
- A capital scheme must reduce the risk of arbitrary or capricious death sentences by narrowing death eligibility and providing a structured method for the sentencing decision.
- A state may channel sentencing discretion through specific questions for the jury, including questions about future dangerousness, if the framework meaningfully guides the decision.
- A statute need not list mitigating factors explicitly if, as authoritatively construed, the jury can consider relevant mitigating evidence about the defendant’s character, background, and the circumstances of the offense.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Texas’s post-*Furman* capital sentencing statute because it narrowed death eligibility to defined categories of murder and guided the jury through special issues that, as construed by Texas courts, allowed consideration of mitigating evidence, thereby satisfying the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.


Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)