## Facts

- LaRoyce Lathair Smith was convicted in Texas of capital murder for killing a former co-worker during a robbery at a Dallas County Taco Bell.
- At the penalty phase, the jury was required to answer Texas “special issues” on (1) deliberateness and (2) future dangerousness.
- The trial court gave a supplemental “nullification instruction” directing jurors to give effect to mitigating evidence only by answering “no” to a special issue even if they believed the truthful answer was “yes.”
- The jury answered “yes” to both special issues and imposed a death sentence.
- On state postconviction review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief, reasoning either that Smith had not presented “constitutionally significant” mitigating evidence or that the instruction differed enough from an instruction previously held unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed whether the sentencing instructions allowed constitutionally adequate consideration of mitigation.

## Issues

1. Whether Smith’s proffered evidence met the constitutional relevance threshold for mitigating evidence requiring a sentencing mechanism to give it effect.
2. Whether a “nullification instruction” that permits jurors to consider mitigation only by giving a false “no” answer to the Texas special issues provides an adequate vehicle for jurors to give full effect to mitigating evidence under the Eighth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a per curiam decision.
- The Court held Smith’s mitigating evidence was relevant under the low relevance threshold applicable in capital sentencing.
- The Court held the nullification instruction was constitutionally inadequate because it did not provide an adequate vehicle for the jury to give full consideration and full effect to mitigating circumstances.
- The Court rejected asserted distinctions between this instruction and the materially similar instruction found unconstitutional in prior precedent.

## Legal Principles

- In capital cases, the Eighth Amendment requires that the sentencer be able to consider and give effect to relevant mitigating evidence in choosing whether to impose death.
- Mitigating evidence is subject to a low threshold of relevance; courts may not require a heightened showing that the evidence is “constitutionally significant” before requiring a mechanism for the jury to act on it.
- Sentencing instructions are unconstitutional if they channel consideration of mitigation into a framework that forces jurors to negate factually supported findings (e.g., to answer “no” despite believing “yes”) as the only means to effectuate mitigation.
- A constitutionally valid scheme must provide a coherent vehicle for a reasoned moral response to mitigating evidence, not one that depends on juror “nullification” of their factual conclusions.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Smith’s mitigating evidence triggered the Eighth Amendment requirement for an effective jury mechanism to give it effect and that Texas’s nullification instruction failed that requirement, warranting reversal and remand for further proceedings.


Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (2004)