SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SHAUN MICHAEL BOSSE v. OKLAHOMA
on petition for writ of certiorari to the
court of criminal appeals of oklahoma
No. 15–9173. Decided October 11, 2016
Per Curiam.
In Booth v. Maryland, 482
U. S. 496 (1987) , this Court held that “the Eighth Amendment
prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact
evidence” that does not “relate directly to the circumstances of
the crime.” Id., at 501–502, 507, n. 10. Four years later,
in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 (1991) ,
the Courtgranted certiorari to reconsider that ban on
“ ‘victim impact’evidence relating to the personal
characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the
crimes on the victim’s family.” Id., at 817. The Court held
that Booth was wrong to conclude that the Eighth Amendment
required such a ban. Payne, 501 U. S. at 827. That
holding was expressly “limited to” this particular type of victim
impact testimony. Id., at 830, n. 2. “Booth also held
that the admission of a victim’s family members’ characterizations
and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate
sentence violates the Eighth Amendment,” but no such evidence was
presented in Payne, so the Court had no occasion to
reconsider that aspect of the decision. Ibid.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held
that Payne “implicitly overruled that portion of
Booth regarding characterizations of the defendant and
opinions of the sentence.” Conover v. State, 933 P.
2d 904, 920 (1997) (emphasis added); see also Ledbetter v.
State, 933 P. 2d 880, 890–891 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). The
decision below presents a straightforward application of that
interpretation of Payne. A jury convicted petitioner Shaun
Michael Bosse of three counts of first-degree murder for the 2010
killing of Katrina Griffin and her two children. The State of
Oklahoma sought the death penalty. Over Bosse’s objection, the
State asked three of the victims’ relatives to recommend a sentence
to the jury. All three recommended death, and the jury agreed.
Bosse appealed, arguing that this testimony about the appropriate
sentence violated the Eighth Amendment under Booth. The
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his sentence,
concluding that there was “no error.” 2015 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 57–58, 360
P. 3d 1203, 1226–1227. We grant certiorari and the motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, and now vacate the judgment of
the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
“[I]t is this Court’s prerogative alone to
overrule one of its precedents.” United States v.
Hatter, 532 U. S. 557, 567 (2001) (quoting State Oil
Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 20 (1997) ; internal
quotation marks omitted); see Rodriguez de Quijas v.
Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484
(1989) . The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized that
Payne “specifically acknowledged its holding did not affect”
Booth’s prohibition on opinions about the crime, the
defendant, and the appropriate punishment. Ledbetter, 933 P.
2d at 890–891. That should have ended its inquiry into whether the
Eighth Amendment bars such testimony; the court was wrong to go
further and conclude that Payne implicitly overruled
Booth in its entirety. “Our decisions remain binding
precedent until we see fit to reconsider them, regardless of
whether subsequent cases have raised doubts about their continuing
vitality.” Hohn v. United States, 524 U. S. 236
–253 (1998).
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals remains
bound by Booth’s prohibition on characterizations and
opinions from a victim’s family members about the crime, the
defendant, and the appropriate sentence unless this Court
reconsiders that ban. The state court erred in concluding
otherwise.
The State argued in opposing certiorari that,
even if the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was wrong in its
victim impact ruling, that error did not affect the jury’s
sentencing determination, and the defendant’s rights were in any
event protected by the mandatory sentencing review in capital cases
required under Oklahoma law. See Brief in Opposition 14–15. Those
contentions may be addressed on remand to the extent the court
below deems appropriate.
The judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 15–9173
_________________
SHAUN MICHAEL BOSSE v. OKLAHOMA
on petition for writ of certiorari to the
court of criminal appeals of oklahoma
[October 11, 2016]
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins,
concurring.
We held in Booth v. Maryland, 482
U. S. 496 (1987) , that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a court
from admitting the opinions of the victim’s family members about
the appropriate sentence in a capital case. The Court today
correctly observes that our decision in Payne v.
Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 (1991) , did not expressly
overrule this aspect of Booth. Because “it is this Court’s
prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents,” State Oil
Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 20 (1997) , the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that Payne
invalidated Booth in its entirety. In vacating the decision
below, this Court says nothing about whether Booth was
correctly decided or whether Payne swept away its analytical
foundations. I join the Court’s opinion with this
understanding.
