Kelly, William v. South Carolina (01/09/2002)

By: Lisa Smith, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Did the trial judge's refusal to inform a capital defendant's sentencing jury that he would never be eligible for parole if the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment, rather than to death, violate Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994)?

Brief

On Jan. 5, 1996, a police officer drove by a Batesburg, South Carolina Kentucky Fried Chicken past closing time and saw a car parked in the restaurants lot, engine running and its drivers side door open. Officer Stephen Clare knew the car belonged to the restaurants manager, Shirley Shealy, and pulled up to investigate. Inside the restaurant, Clare found Shealys body. Shealy, who was 23 weeks pregnant, had been stabbed 31 times, her hands duct-taped behind her back, her throat slit from ear to ear.

After interviewing KFC employees, Batesburg-Leesville police searched for 17-year-old former KFC employee William Kelly. Three days later, Kellys mother told police Kelly was at his sisters home in Lowell, Mass. Lowell police found Kelly with money and clothes stained with Shealys blood. Upon arrest, he admitted to killing Shealy and stealing money from the restaurant.

Kelly was convicted of murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and possession of a knife during the commission of a violent crime.

In its closing argument in the sentencing phase, the state argued, ""murderers will be murderers,"" and the death penalty was ""the punishment that fits the crime."" Kelly had also planned escapes from jail, the state had pointed out. Kelly was sentenced to death.

On direct appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, he argued, among other things, that the trial judge violated Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) by refusing to inform the sentencing jury that he would never be eligible for parole if the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. In Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ""state may not create a false dilemma by advancing the generalized arguments regarding the defendants future dangerousness while, at the same time, preventing the jury from learning that the defendant never will be released on parole.""

The Simmons rule states that if the state characterizes the defendant as displaying ""future dangerousness"" and if the only available alternative sentence to death is life imprisonment without parole, the jury must be informed of the defendants parole ineligibility under a life sentence as an alternative to the death penalty.

Kelly argued that the states evidence of his escape attempts raised the issue of future dangerousness because a successful escape would imply a risk to the public.

The South Carolina Supreme Court, which filed its opinion Jan. 8, 2001, disagreed. ""Evidence that Kelly took part in escape attempts and carried a [weapon] simply is not the type of future dangerousness evidence contemplated by Simmons.""

Additionally, the state Supreme Court held, because Kelly was tried under a new sentencing scheme, he could have been sentenced to either death, life without possibility of parole, or a mandatory minimum 30 year sentence. The third option exists when the jury does not find the existence of ""aggravating circumstance."" Because the third option exists, the court did not violate the Simmons rule, the state Supreme Court held.

State Supreme Court Justice Costa Pleicones dissented in part, arguing that the court should have taken this case as an opportunity to develop a rule applicable in every capital case — that a parole ineligibility instruction should be given to the sentencing jury.

""I propose a rule that is not dependent upon the shifting grounds of constitutional interpretation, is simple to apply, and has the result of fully informing the jury of its options,"" Pleicones wrote. ""(T)he jury should be equipped with the same knowledge in terms of sentencing as a sentencing judge.""

On June 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and allowed Kelly to proceed in forma pauperis.

A Supreme Court ruling would most likely only affect capital defendants in two states -- South Carolina and Pennsylvania -- ""the only two states with the death penalty who continue to try and circumvent Simmons,"" Robert Lominack, one of the lawyers representing Kelly, said after the Court accepted the case. ""All the other states either inform the jury about the ineligibility of release of the capital defendant or do not have life without parole as an option.""

In a few states, judges sentence capital defendants.

On Jan. 9, 2002, the Court, divided along ideological lines with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor providing the swing vote, held 5-4 that jurors choosing between death and life without parole should be told that the defendant has no chance of parole.

Justice David Souter wrote the majority opinion. Chief Justice William Rehnquist penned a dissent, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined. Justice Clarence Thomas also authored a dissent for himself and Justice Antonin Scalia.