Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Richmond Vs. Lewis

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 13, 1992

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

53 entries 6 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Godfrey Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · May 19, 1980
  2. Clemons Vs. Mississippi US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1990
  3. Walton Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1990
  4. Stringer Vs. Black US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1991
  5. Lewis Vs. Jeffers US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1990
  6. Maynard Vs. Cartwright US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1988
  7. U.S. 40 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Richmond V. Lewis
    Search
  8. things, the principal opinion for two of the justices found that the (F)(6) factor-which had been narrowed in State v. Gretzler
    Search
  9. Amendment. The (F)(6) factor was unconstitutionally vague at the time the sentencing judge gave it weight. Walton v. Arizona
    Search
  10. did not actually reweigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in affirming the sentence. See, e. g., Clemons v. Mississippi
    Search
  11. Crummett. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the sentence, conviction, and denial of postconviction relief. State v. Richmond
    Search
  12. invalid because the sentencing judge had been constrained to consider a limited set of mitigating factors. Richmond v. Cardwell
    Search
  13. Arizona death penalty statute unconstitutional insofar as it limited defendants to statutory mitigating factors, State v. Watson
    Search
  14. A divided Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed, with each of the five justices joining one of three opinions. State v. Richmond
    Search
  15. State v. Gretzler
    Search
  16. within the meaning of State v. Gretzler
    Search
  17. Court for the District of Arizona, challenging his sentence and conviction. The District Court denied relief, Richmond v. Ricketts
    Search
  18. and, in the alternative, that petitioner's sentence could stand without that factor despite our decision in Clemons v. Mississippi
    Search
  19. if it fails to furnish principled guidance for the choice between death and a lesser penalty. See, e. g., Maynard v. Cartwright
    Search
  20. vague aggravating factor, even if other, valid aggravating factors ob- 47 tain. See, e. g., Stringer v. Black
    Search
  21. a state appellate court may rely upon an adequate narrowing construction of the factor in curing this error. See Lewis v. Jeffers
    Search
  22. standard of Jackson v. Virginia
    Search
  23. U. S. 307 (1979). See Lewis v. Jeffers
    Search
  24. factor was at issue in Walton v. Arizona
    Search
  25. And the provision has been con- 48 strued thus by the Supreme Court of Arizona. See, e. g., State v. Brewer
    Search
  26. State v. Valencia
    Search
  27. State v. Brookover
    Search
  28. factor had no effect on the sentencing judge's calculus and therefore was harmless. Rather, they point to State v. Gretzler
    Search
  29. factor. See Lewis v. Jeffers
    Search
  30. with which a state appellate court must reweigh in order to cure an otherwise invalid death sentence, see Clemons v. Mississippi
    Search
  31. cf. Sochor v. Florida
    Search
  32. the state sentencer committed state-law error in relying upon an adequately narrowed aggravating factor. See Lewis v. Jeffers
    Search
  33. F)(6) factor to petitioner if he did not intentionally drive the car over Crummett. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38-39. Cf. Tison v. Arizona
    Search
  34. concurring. The Court holds that the concurring Arizona Supreme Court justices violated the rule of Clemons v. Mississippi
    Search
  35. the trial court were present in this case. Respondents do not claim that this rule is a new one for purposes of Teague v. Lane
    Search
  36. unavailable to a habeas petitioner. The reason, presumably, is that a Teague defense is foreclosed by Stringer v. Black
    Search
  37. became final, see id., at 227-232. 54 limiting construction of this aggravating circumstance, see State v. Gretzler
    Search
  38. sentence unquestionably complied with the narrowing requirement imposed by the line of cases commencing with Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  39. upon the States a further constitutional requirement that the sentencer consider mitigating evidence, see Walton v. Arizona
    Search
  40. Syllabus Richmond V. Lewis
    Search
  41. State v. Richmond
    Search
  42. Richmond v. Cardwell
    Search
  43. State v. Watson
    Search
  44. of State v. Gretzler
    Search
  45. Richmond v. Ricketts
    Search
  46. See Lewis v. Jeffers
    Search
  47. of Jackson v. Virginia
    Search
  48. State v. Brewer
    Search
  49. Sochor v. Florida
    Search
  50. Cf. Tison v. Arizona
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial