Shaun Michael BOSSE
v.
OKLAHOMA.
No. 15-9173.
Supreme Court of the United States
Oct. 11, 2016.
PER CURIAM.
In Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), this Court held that "the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence" that does not "relate directly to the circumstances of the crime." Id., at 501-502, 507, n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 2529. Four years later, in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), the Court granted certiorari to reconsider that ban on " 'victim impact' evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim's family." Id., at 817, 111 S.Ct. 2597. The Court held that Booth was wrong to conclude that the Eighth Amendment required such a ban. Payne, 501 U.S. at 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597. That holding was expressly "limited to" this particular type of victim impact testimony. Id., at 830, n. 2, 111 S.Ct. 2597. "Booth also held that the admission of a victim's family members' characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence violates the Eighth Amendment," but no such evidence was presented in Payne, so the Court had no occasion to reconsider that aspect of the decision. Ibid.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Payne "implicitly overruled that portion of Booth regarding characterizations of the defendant and opinions of the sentence." Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904, 920 (1997) (emphasis added); see also Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880, 890-891 (Okla.Crim.App.1997). The decision below presents a straightforward application of that interpretation of Payne . A jury convicted petitioner Shaun Michael Bosse of three counts of first-degree murder for the 2010 killing of Katrina Griffin and her two children. The State of Oklahoma sought the death penalty. Over Bosse's objection, the State asked three of the victims' relatives to recommend a sentence to the jury. All three recommended death, and the jury agreed. Bosse appealed, arguing that this testimony about the appropriate sentence violated the Eighth Amendment under Booth . The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his sentence, concluding that there was "no error." 2015 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 57-58, 360 P.3d 1203, 1226-1227. We grant certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and now vacate the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
"[I]t is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents." United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567, 121 S.Ct. 1782, 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001) (quoting State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) ; internal quotation marks omitted); see Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized that Payne "specifically acknowledged its holding did not affect" Booth 's prohibition on opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate punishment. Ledbetter, 933 P.2d at 890-891. That should have ended its inquiry into whether the Eighth Amendment bars such testimony; the court was wrong to go further and conclude that Payne implicitly overruled Booth in its entirety. "Our decisions remain binding precedent until we see fit to reconsider them, regardless of whether subsequent cases have raised doubts about their continuing vitality." Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 252-253, 118 S.Ct. 1969, 141 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998).
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals remains bound by Booth 's prohibition on characterizations and opinions from a victim's family members about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence unless this Court reconsiders that ban. The state court erred in concluding otherwise.
The State argued in opposing certiorari that, even if the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was wrong in its victim impact ruling, that error did not affect the jury's sentencing determination, and the defendant's rights were in any event protected by the mandatory sentencing review in capital cases required under Oklahoma law. See Brief in Opposition 14-15. Those contentions may be addressed on remand to the extent the court below deems appropriate.
The judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice ALITO joins, concurring.
We held in Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a court from admitting the opinions of the victim's family members about the appropriate sentence in a capital case. The Court today correctly observes that our decision in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), did not expressly overrule this aspect of Booth . Because "it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents," State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that Payne invalidated Booth in its entirety. In vacating the decision below, this Court says nothing about whether Booth was correctly decided or whether Payne swept away its analytical foundations. I join the Court's opinion with this understanding.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.