Kansas v. Marsh
Marsh was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Kansas death penalty statute requires imposition of the death penalty if mitigating circumstances do not outweigh aggravating circumstances. In the event that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances are evenly balanced, the statute specifically requires the jury to impose the death sentence. During the penalty phase of Marsh's trial, the prosecution presented three aggravating circumstances to the jury, and the trial judge instructed the jury to impose the death penalty if it found that the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, or that the circumstances were in equipoise.
After Marsh’s trial, the Kansas Supreme Court held in State v. Kleypas that the death penalty statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments if applied to impose the death penalty when mitigating and aggravating circumstances carry equal weight. The court did not invalidate the statute; instead, it held that the statute requires the imposition of the death penalty only when aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances. Subsequently, Marsh appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the Kansas death penalty statute is unconstitutional on its face and must be invalidated. The Kansas Supreme Court overruled Kleypas, declaring that the death penalty statute was unconstitutional on its face and could not be saved by reading out the tie-breaker rule. The court reversed Marsh’s sentence and remanded to the trial court for further sentencing proceedings.
Question Presented:
Does it violate the Constitution for a state capital sentencing statute to provide for the imposition of the death penalty when the sentencing jury
determines that the mitigating and aggravating evidence is in equipoise?
