NCJ Number
137501
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Law Volume: 19 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1992) Pages: 345-394
Date Published
1992
Length
50 pages
Annotation
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Penry v. Lynaugh that the Texas capital sentencing procedure provided constitutionally inadequate consideration of the mitigating circumstances of the defendant's mental retardation and abused childhood.
Abstract
Texas has used capital punishment prior to its Statehood, but has gradually narrowed the range of capital offenses and methods of execution as societal norms have evolved. In the wake of the Furman v. Georgia decision, Texas offenders on death row had their sentences commuted or reformed to life imprisonment. Following the Furman ruling, the Texas legislature narrowed the class of capital offenses and adopted some procedures to guide juries in capital sentencing. However, the defendant in Penry argued that the Texas capital procedure impermissibly prevented the jury from considering and giving full effect to his mitigating evidence. Subsequent to Penry, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has reexamined its position regarding mitigating evidence; it has virtually waived all procedural bars on direct appeal and collateral review, but has narrowly interpreted Penry so as to require little relief regarding Penry claims. 226 notes