Smith v. Texas
After his state court conviction of capital murder was upheld on appeal, Smith petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus. The district court granted the petition, in part on the grounds of an unconstitutional jury instruction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding in relevant part that the state court was not required to give a special instruction to the jury allowing it to consider Smith’s background as a mitigating circumstances, as required by Penry v. Johnson, because the evidence of mental retardation did not demonstrate that Smith suffered from a "uniquely severe permanent handicap" and that his criminal act was attributable to this condition. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, and then remanded the case in light of its opinion in Tennard v. Dretke.
On remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the possible constitutional error in the jury instruction was not so "egregiously injurious" to Smith's right to have the jury consider and evaluate all of his mitigation evidence that he did not receive a "fundamentally fair trial."
Questions Presented:
1. Is it consistent with this Court's remand in this case for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to deem the error in petitioner's case harmless
based on its view that jurors were in fact able to give adequate consideration and effect to petitioner's mitigating evidence notwithstanding this
Court's conclusion to the contrary?
2. Can the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, based on a procedural determination that it declined to adopt in its original decision that this Court
then summarily reversed, impose on remand a daunting standard of harm ('egregious harm') to the constitutional violation found by this Court?
