## Facts

- Jonathan Dale Simmons was convicted in South Carolina of murdering 79-year-old Josie Lamb and proceeded to a capital sentencing phase.
- Before trial, Simmons pleaded guilty to other serious offenses, which, under South Carolina law, made him legally ineligible for parole.
- South Carolina law left the sentencing jury only two options: death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
- During jury selection, the defense was barred from questioning prospective jurors about their understanding of parole.
- In the penalty phase, the State argued Simmons’s future dangerousness, characterizing a death sentence as necessary to protect society.
- Simmons sought to inform the jury, by instruction, that he was parole ineligible; the trial court refused.
- During deliberations, the jury asked whether a life sentence included the possibility of parole; the judge told the jury not to consider parole and to apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of “life imprisonment.”
- The jury sentenced Simmons to death, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause is violated in a capital sentencing when the State argues future dangerousness but the jury is not informed that the defendant is legally ineligible for parole when life without parole is the only alternative to death.
2. Whether a generic instruction to disregard parole and apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of “life imprisonment” adequately protects due process in that setting.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that, when future dangerousness is at issue and state law makes the defendant parole ineligible, due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed of parole ineligibility.
- The Court concluded the trial court’s instructions did not cure the risk that jurors would assume a life sentence could permit eventual release and therefore would face a misleading choice between death and a potentially release-eligible term.
- Although the controlling rationale came from a plurality opinion plus a concurrence in the judgment, a majority agreed on the required result in the circumstances presented.

## Legal Principles

- Due process bars a death sentence based on materially misleading information that the defendant lacks a fair opportunity to deny or explain.
- When the prosecution places future dangerousness before the jury and the defendant cannot be paroled under state law, the jury must be accurately told that the defendant is parole ineligible.
- Generic directions not to consider parole, or to apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of “life imprisonment,” are insufficient when they leave jurors free to assume parole eligibility in a case where parole is legally unavailable.
- The constitutional requirement is limited to the circumstance where future dangerousness is argued and the sentencing alternative to death is life imprisonment without parole.

## Conclusion

Because the State urged the jury to consider Simmons’s future dangerousness while the court prevented the jury from learning that Simmons could never be released on parole, the sentencing decision risked resting on a mistaken belief about the real-life consequence of a life sentence; due process therefore required informing the jury of parole ineligibility, and the death sentence was reversed.


Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994)