Bradshaw v. Stumpf - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Chief Justice

Mr. Justice: The opinion of the Court in Bradshaw against Stumpf will be announced by Justice O'Connor.

Argument of Justice O'Connor

Mr. O'Connor: This case comes on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The responded, Stumpf entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to death for committing aggravated murder as part of his armed robbery of a married couple in Ohio.

He acted with an accomplice.

Although, Stumpf admitted both that he took part in the robbery and that he shot the husband who happened to survive, Stumpf has always claimed that his accomplice shot the wife who died.

Stumpf's petition for federal writ of habeas corpus was denied by the District Court but the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed granting Stumpf relief on habeas corpus on two grounds.

In an opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court today, we reverse the Sixth Circuit's judgment in part, we vacate it in part, and we remand for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals first concluded that Stumpf's conviction was invalid because he entered the guilty plea without knowing the elements of the crime at issue.

We reverse this portion of the judgment below because we find that Stumpf was properly informed of the elements of the crime.

At the plea hearing, Stumpf's attorneys told the Court that they had explained the crimes elements to Stumpf, a representation that Stumpf himself affirmed on record.

The Sixth Circuit thought that Stumpf who has always denied the killing of the wife, would not have entered the guilty plea had he known that a conviction for aggravated murder requires proof of the defendant's intent to cause death.

But Stumpf's conviction for aggravated murder is consistent with his claim that his accomplice in the robbery shot the victim.

Ohio's Death Penalty Statute covers those who aid and abet another person to kill so long as the aiding and abetting is itself done with the intent to cause death, and Stumpf's role in the crime provided an adequate basis for finding the requirements met under Ohio Law.

The Court of Appeals also concluded that Stumpf's conviction and sentence could not stand because the state when it prosecuted Stumpf's accomplice advanced an inconsistent theory of the crime that contradicted the theory advanced by the prosecutor in Stumpf's own case.

In seeking the death penalty against Stumpf, the state argued and the Sentencing Court agreed that Stumpf himself shot and killed the wife.

In prosecuting Stumpf's accomplice, however, the state argued that Stumpf's accomplice had shot and killed the wife.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to interpret this inconsistency as voiding Stumpf's guilty plea to the aggravated murder because as explained above, Ohio's statute covers Stumpf regardless of which person shot and killed the victim.

The prosecutor's arguments may have had a more direct effect on the death sentence given to Stumpf however.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals leaves some ambiguity about the extent to which the Court of Appeals considered the sentencing issue separate from the conviction question, and the parties briefing to this Court focused on the conviction rather than the sentence.

Under these circumstances, we do not make a decision on the merits of Stumpf's sentencing claims at this time instead we vacate this portion of the judgment below and remand the case so that the Court of Appeals may in the first instance consider the sentencing claim independent of the conviction claim.

The decision is unanimous.

Justice Souter has filed a concurring opinion which Justice Ginsburg has joined; Justice Thomas has filed a concurring opinion which Justice Scalia has joined.