KANSAS V. MARSH 126 S.Ct. 2516 (2006) CASE BRIEF

KANSAS V. MARSH

548 U.S. 163 (2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Marsh (D) was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. D appealed contending that Kansas (P) law establishes an unconstitutional presumption in favor of death by directing imposition of the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating circumstances are in equipoise. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed holding that P's weighing equation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme court granted certiorari.

FACTS: Kansas law provides that if a unanimous jury finds that aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by mitigating circumstances, the death penalty shall be imposed. D broke into the home of Marry Ane Pusch and lay in wait for her to return. When Marry Ane entered her home with her 19-month-old daughter, D repeatedly shot Marry Ane, stabbed her, and slashed her throat. The home was set on fire with the toddler inside, and the toddler burned to death. D was convicted of the capital murder of M. P. and the first-degree premeditated murder of Marry Ane, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of three aggravating circumstances, and that those circumstances were not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances. D was sentenced to death. D challenged 21-4624(e), which reads: 'If, by unanimous vote, the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in K. S. A. 21-4625 ... exist and, further, that the existence of such aggravating circumstances is not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances which are found to exist, the defendant shall be sentenced to death; otherwise the defendant shall be sentenced as provided by law.' D contends that 21-4624(e) establishes an unconstitutional presumption in favor of death because it directs imposition of the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating circumstances are in equipoise. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed that the weighing equation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because in the event of equipoise, i.e., the jury's determination that the balance of any aggravating circumstances and any mitigating circumstances weighed equal, the death penalty would be required. P appealed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner