Payne v. Tennessee

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
J. Brooke Lathram (argued the cause for petitioner)
Charles W. Burson (on behalf of the Respondent)
Dick Thornburgh (Attorney General, Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
90-5721
Petitioner: 
Pervis Tyrone Payne
Respondent: 
Tennessee
Decided By: 
Rehnquist Court (1991)
Opinion: 
501 U.S. 808 (1991)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Payne v. Tennessee , 501 U.S. 808 (1991)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_90_5721)
Facts of the Case: 

A Tennessee court tried Pervis Payne for murdering Charisse Christopher and her daughter Lacie. In hopes of avoiding the death penalty, Payne provided four witnesses testifying to his good character. The prosecution had Charisse's mother share how Charisse's death had impacted her surviving son Nicholas. In closing arguments, the prosecutor referenced Nicholas' loss of his mother when calling for the death penalty. The jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. Payne argued that the prosecution could not use testimony of how the victim's death impacted family members when contending for the death penalty. The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled against him.

Question: 

Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit a capital sentencing jury from considering the impact that a victim's death had upon surviving family members?

Conclusion: 

No. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for a 6-3 court. The Court overruled Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers which prohibited the submission of evidence relating to the harms caused by the victim's death. The Court reasoned that since "[v]irtually no limits are placed on the relevant mitigating evidence a capital defendant may introduce concerning his own circumstances," the prosecution must be allowed to submit similar counter evidence. Evidence regarding the "assessment of the harm caused by the defendant has long been an important factor in determining the appropriate punishment, and victim impact evidence is simply another method of informing the sentencing authority about such harm."

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Tennessee, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Sort by Seniority

Wrote a dissent
Marshall
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Marshall's dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Blackmun
Voted with the majority, joined O'Connor's concurrence
White
Wrote a regular concurrence
Souter
Wrote a regular concurrence, joined Scalia's concurrence
O'Connor
Voted with the majority, joined multiple concurrences
Kennedy
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist