Smith v. Schriro, No. 96-99025 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of murder and the Pima County Superior court found that Atkins v. Virginia did not preclude his execution, the Arizona Court of Appeals denied special action relief, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied a petition for review. In 2010, this court remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of considering petitioner's Atkins claim and the district court denied the claim in 2012. The court concluded that a presumption of correctness does not apply to the state court's factual determination that petitioner was not intellectually disabled at the time of the offense and trial. The court held that the state court’s factual determination is not entitled to deference because it is not fairly supported by the record. Judge Reinhardt would hold that deference is not due for the additional and independent reason that the Pima County Superior Court rendered its finding that petitioner was not intellectually disabled under a constitutionally impermissible legal standard. Applying de novo review to determine whether petitioner has demonstrated intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence as required by Arizona law, the court held that he has met this burden where, considering his intellectual functioning test scores and his history of significantly impaired adaptive behavior, as the court must under Atkins and Hall v. Florida, the court found that the record in this case overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner satisfied the two substantive prongs of Arizona’s definition of intellectual disability both prior to age eighteen and at the time of the crime. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed Arizona state prisoner Robert Douglas Smith’s death sentence in a case to which the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act does not apply, and remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus and return the case to the state court to reduce Smith’s sentence to life or natural life. The state court determined on remand that Smith was not intellectually disabled at the time of the offense and trial under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), which held that the execution of intellectually disabled criminals constitutes cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The panel held that because the state court’s factual determination is not fairly supported by the record, a presumption of correctness does not apply. Judge Reinhardt would hold (section II.C.2) that deference is not due for the additional and independent reason that the state court rendered its finding that Smith was not intellectually disabled under a constitutionally impermissible legal standard. Reviewing the record de novo, and considering Smith’s intellectual functioning test scores and his history of significantly impaired adaptive behavior, the panel found that Smith satisfied by clear and convincing evidence the two SMITH V. SCHRIRO 3 substantive prongs of Arizona’s definition of intellectual disability both prior to the age of eighteen and at the time of the crime. Judge Schroeder concurred in all of Judge Reinhardt’s opinion except section II.C.2. Specially concurring, Judge Reinhardt wrote to convey his serious concerns regarding the constitutionality of Arizona’s Atkins statute. Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that the majority reaches its conclusion that Smith was not intellectually disabled when he committed the murder by disregarding the findings of the state courts, denying those courts the deference they are due, and expressing supreme confidence in its own ability to detect past intellectual disability despite substantial conflicting evidence and the fact that Smith is not now intellectually disabled. 4 SMITH V. SCHRIRO
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.