Citation network
Cabana Vs. Bullock
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 22, 1986
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 376 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
U.S. 376 (1986) Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
Appeals reversed on the ground that respondent's death sentence was invalid under the intervening decision in Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
J., joined, post, p. 474 U. S. 407 . JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. In Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
Price v. StateSearch
-
his level of involvement in the crime as to violate the Eighth Amendment. The court rejected both contentions. Bullock v. StateSearch
-
our decision in Enmund, which was handed down during the pendency of the District Court proceedings. Bullock v. LucasSearch
-
can be satisfied only by findings made at the guilt-innocence or sentencing phase of a trial ( see also Redix v. ThigpenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
F.2d 705 (CA5 1984)) conflicts with the interpretation of Enmund adopted by the Eleventh Circuit, see Ross v. KempSearch
-
A defendant charged with a serious crime has the right to have a jury determine his guilt or innocence, Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
provided the jury do not require it to find each element of the crime under the proper standard of proof, Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
of a defendant resulting from the court's failure to instruct it to find an element of the crime. See Connecticut v. JohnsonSearch
-
Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
Reddix v. ThigpenSearch
-
is appropriate in any given case is not one that we have ever required to be made by a jury. Indeed, in Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
has long been viewed as one that a trial judge or an appellate court is fully competent to make. See, e.g., Solem v. HelmSearch
-
Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
exercise of sentencing discretion and from the type of Eighth Amendment proportionality inquiry undertaken in Solem v. HelmSearch
-
Pulley v. HarrisSearch
-
d), see Sumner v. MataSearch
-
it requires that he himself have actually killed, attempted to kill, or intended that lethal force be used. v. ThereSearch
-
of state courts to carry out their role as the primary protectors of the rights of criminal defendants, see Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
carry out in the first instance the factual inquiry called for by Enmund. To paraphrase our opinion in Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
first, however, we cannot conclude that the jury followed the second instruction. As was the case last Term in Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
hence, such cases as Cole v. ArkansasSearch
-
JUSTICE BLACKMUN's reliance on Hicks v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 343 (1980), and Presnell v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the jury had not been instructed. We set aside both the conviction and the death sentence on the authority of Cole v. ArkansasSearch
-
determining guilt or innocence. This assumption, of course, is no longer tenable in light of our holding in Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
determinations that could not be accurately made by an appellate court on the basis of a paper record, cf. Anderson v. BessemerSearch
-
even if credibility issues and other ambiguities in the record are resolved in his or her favor. See, e.g., Ross v. KempSearch
-
the court would therefore simply deny the writ without requiring further proceedings in the state courts. Cf. Ross v. KempSearch
-
Bullock v. StateSearch
-
is, in all circumstances, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting. Last Term, in Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
holds that the Mississippi Supreme Court may be competent to make, on a paper record, the findings required by Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
constitutional safeguards on the capital sentencing process that the Court has acknowledged in the decade since Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
The Mississippi Supreme Court explicitly based its account of the crime on Bullock's written confession, see Bullock v. StateSearch
-
we insist on 'individualized consideration as a constitutional requirement in imposing the death sentence,' Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
which means that we must focus on 'relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender.' Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Id. at 798 (emphasis in original). See also Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
penalty. Cf. ante at 474 U. S. 390 . Like the statutory aggravating circumstances discussed in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cabana v. BullockSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial