Citation network
Mckoy Vs. North Carolina
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 1990
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
-
McKoy v. NorthSearch
-
Carolina - 494 U.S. 433 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court McKoy v. NorthSearch
-
Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) McKoy v. NorthSearch
-
circumstances found. The State Supreme Court rejected petitioner's challenge to his sentence, distinguishing Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
of that evidence if the sentencer could reasonably find that it warrants a sentence less than death. Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
U. S. 104 . The State misplaces its reliance on Patterson v. NewSearch
-
factors is not constitutional merely because the State also requires unanimity on aggravating circumstances. Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
penalty, any mitigating factor that the jury does not unanimously find. We hold that, under our decision in Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
During the pendency of petitioner's direct appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, this Court decided Mills v. PageSearch
-
juror to prevent the other jurors from considering mitigating evidence violated the principle established in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
New Jersey v. T.LSearch
-
Furthermore, our holdings in Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
Carolina, 476 U. S. 1 (1986), and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
to ensure the reliability of mitigating evidence. The State's reliance on Page 494 U. S. 442 Patterson v. NewSearch
-
whether the barrier to the sentencer's consideration of all mitigating evidence is interposed by statute, Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
by the sentencing court, Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
or by an evidentiary ruling, Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
because it places the same limitation on consideration of aggravating circumstances. As the Court stated in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
s discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to decline to impose the death sentence.' McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
mitigating circumstance to be present, that circumstance is deemed to have mitigating value as a matter of law. State v. StokesSearch
-
the jury must decide both whether the circumstance has been proved and whether it has mitigating value. See State v. PinchSearch
-
N.C. 1, 26, 292 S.E.2d 203, 223, cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1056 (1982), citing State v. JohnsonSearch
-
In fact, this case presents an even clearer case for reversal than Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
BLACKMUN, concurring. I join the Court's opinion, but write separately only to underscore my conviction that Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
agreement before any juror could consider a particular mitigating factor was forbidden by our decisions in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 (1978), and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
of, for this Court to decide significant legal questions on which the parties have not joined issue. See, e.g., Teague v. LaneSearch
-
unanimity is simply not the type of restriction found unconstitutional in Lockett and Eddings. See State v. KirkleySearch
-
state rules that place upon criminal defendants the burden of proving affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Patterson v. NewSearch
-
not say that, and it is not at all clear that a conviction, rather than a hung jury, would be the outcome. See State v. HarrisSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Cf. United States v. W.TSearch
-
F.2d 1405, 1407 (CA9 1983). Accord, United States v. DuncanSearch
-
United States v. BerosSearch
-
United States v. SchiffSearch
-
United States v. GipsonSearch
-
F.2d 453, 456-459 (CA5 1977). But see United States v. BouquettSearch
-
of the twelve. As a consequence, the statute here can operate in the same manner as the jury instructions in Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
I concur in the judgment here. The Page 494 U. S. 453 Court's reliance on our decisions in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
means. See, e.g., Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
went on to state that the unanimity requirement was inconsistent with our holdings in Lockett, Eddings, Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
U. S. 393 (1987), and Skipper v. SouthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial