## Facts

- David J. Stephens was convicted of murder in Georgia and sentenced to death after a bifurcated trial.
- The sentencing jury was instructed that it could impose death only if it found and designated in writing at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, and it could consider all evidence from the guilt phase plus additional aggravating or mitigating evidence.
- The jury found three statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) a prior conviction of a capital felony, (2) a “substantial history of serious assaultive criminal convictions,” and (3) commission of the murder while Stephens was an escapee.
- While Stephens’s appeal was pending, the Georgia Supreme Court held the “substantial history of serious assaultive criminal convictions” aggravator unconstitutionally vague.
- The Georgia Supreme Court nevertheless affirmed Stephens’s death sentence based on the remaining two aggravators.
- On federal habeas review, the Fifth Circuit held the sentence invalid because the jury had relied on an aggravator later declared unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require vacatur of a death sentence when one of multiple statutory aggravating circumstances found by the jury is later held unconstitutional, despite other valid aggravators.
2. Whether Georgia’s capital sentencing scheme is constitutional where statutory aggravating circumstances perform an eligibility “narrowing” function and the jury retains broad discretion in selecting death after eligibility is established.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and upheld Stephens’s death sentence.
- The Court held that invalidation of one aggravating circumstance does not automatically invalidate a death sentence when other statutory aggravators found by the jury remain valid and, under state law, support the sentence.
- The Court held Georgia’s capital sentencing scheme constitutional because it requires at least one valid statutory aggravator to establish death eligibility and permits an individualized sentencing determination.
- The Court concluded the remaining aggravators (prior capital felony and escapee status) sufficiently narrowed death eligibility and differentiated Stephens’s case in a rational, evenhanded manner.
- The Court rejected the claim that the presence of the vague aggravator necessarily tainted the sentencing decision, emphasizing that the invalid factor did not involve constitutionally protected conduct.

## Legal Principles

- A capital sentencing system must ensure that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance “genuinely narrow[s] the class of persons eligible for the death penalty” and “reasonably justify[ies]” the more severe sentence compared to other murder cases.
- States may structure capital sentencing so that statutory aggravators perform a limited eligibility function (narrowing), while the jury makes an individualized selection decision based on the defendant’s character and the circumstances of the crime.
- A death sentence is not automatically unconstitutional merely because one aggravating circumstance considered by the jury is later found invalid, where other valid aggravators establish eligibility and the overall process provides guided, individualized sentencing and meaningful appellate review.
- The constitutional concern is arbitrariness in imposing death; requiring a valid eligibility aggravator and providing appellate oversight can satisfy the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Georgia could uphold a death sentence supported by at least one valid statutory aggravating circumstance even if another aggravator found by the jury was later invalidated for vagueness, so long as the scheme properly narrows eligibility and permits individualized sentencing consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.


Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983)