Today the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review in Hidalgo v. Arizona, No. 17-251. Hidalgo asked the court to consider two important Eighth Amendment questions: (1) Whether Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme, which includes so many aggravating circumstances that virtually every defendant convicted of first-degree murder is eligible for death, violates the Eighth Amendment; and (2) whether the death penalty in and of itself violates the Eighth Amendment, in light of contemporary standards of decency.
The case was distributed for conference ten times before certiorari was denied. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, issued a strong statement respecting the denial of certiorari as to the firstquestion presented—whether Arizona’s statutory sentencing scheme satisfies the Eighth Amendment’s “narrowing requirement” for determining who is “eligible” for the death penalty. The justices did not comment about the second and broader question about whether the death penalty in all cases violates the Eighth Amendment.
It is well-settled, “[t]o pass constitutional muster, a capital sentencing scheme must ‘genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.’” Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U. S. 231, 244 (1988) (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 877 (1983)). As Justice Breyer explains in Hidalgo, “[t]o satisfy the ‘narrowing requirement,” a state legislature must adopt ‘statutory factors which determine death eligibility’ and thereby “limit the class of murders to which the death penalty may be applied.” (quotation marks omitted). Hidalgo’s certiorari petition argued that Arizona’s scheme “utterly fails to do that” because “[t]he number of statutory aggravators has proliferated such that ‘virtually every person—around 99%—convicted of first-degree murder is eligible for the death penalty.” The Arizona trial court denied Hidalgo’s request for an evidentiary hearing to “establish through witnesses, expert testimony, and documentary evidence that [Arizona’s] statutory aggravating circumstances … apply to virtually every first-degree murder case in the State.”
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court but did not dispute Hidalgo’s evidence. “Despite assuming that the aggravating circumstances fail to materially narrow the class of death-eligible first-degree murder defendants, the Arizona Supreme Court nevertheless concluded that the State’s death penalty system meets the Constitution’s narrowing requirement. It said that the petitioner was ‘mistaken … insofar as he focuses only on the legislatively defined aggravating circumstances’ because use of those circumstances ‘is not the only way in which Arizona’s sentencing scheme narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty.’” The Arizona Supreme Court identified five factors not related to the legislative definition of aggravating circumstances.
Justice Breyer’s opinion examines and rejects all five factors as either previously having been rejected by Supreme Court precedent or not showing “the necessary legislative narrowing that [its] precedent requires.” For example, with respect to the Arizona Supreme Court’s reliance on prosecutorial discretion to perform the narrowing requirement, Justice Breyer says “that reasoning cannot be squared with this Court’s precedent—precedent that insists that States perform the ‘constitutionally necessary’ narrowing function ‘at the stage of legislative definition.” (quotation marks omitted). Although the four justices concluded that the Arizona Supreme Court “misapplied” Supreme Court precedent, and that Hidalgo’s evidence “points to a possible constitutional problem,” they agreed that certiorari should be denied. That’s because the record in Hidalgo’s case (through no fault of his own) came to the Court “largely unexamined by experts and the courts below in the first instance.” In Breyer’s view, “the issue presented in [Hildago’s] petition will be better suited for certiorari with such a record.”