Penry v. Lynaugh
E576850
Penry v. Lynaugh is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment did not categorically prohibit executing individuals with intellectual disabilities, a stance later reversed in Atkins v. Virginia.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Penry v. Lynaugh canonical | 1 |
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal law case ⓘ death penalty case ⓘ |
| citation |
106 L. Ed. 2d 256
ⓘ
109 S. Ct. 2934 ⓘ 492 U.S. 302 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1989-06-26 ⓘ |
| decisionType | plurality opinion with separate concurrences and dissents ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 87-6177 ⓘ |
| fullName | Penry v. Lynaugh NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Texas’s special-issues capital sentencing scheme did not allow the jury to give full mitigating effect to evidence of Penry’s intellectual disability and childhood abuse
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
The Eighth Amendment did not categorically prohibit the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy (in part)
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia (in part) NERFINISHED ⓘ Byron R. White (in part) NERFINISHED ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun (in part and in the judgment) NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens (in part and in the judgment) NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall (in part and in the judgment) NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist (in part) NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. (in part and in the judgment) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| keyConcept |
evolving standards of decency
ⓘ
individualized sentencing in capital cases ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| laterCaseCitation | Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
adequacy of Texas capital sentencing instructions to consider mitigating evidence
ⓘ
whether executing a person with intellectual disability violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| overruledBy | Atkins v. Virginia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Johnny Paul Penry NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| priorCourt | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relationshipToCase | precedent limited and effectively reversed on the categorical Eighth Amendment question by Atkins v. Virginia ⓘ |
| respondent | James A. Lynaugh NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondentPosition | Director, Texas Department of Corrections NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and case remanded ⓘ |
| stateLawContext | Texas capital sentencing statute ⓘ |
| topic |
capital punishment and intellectual disability
ⓘ
mitigating evidence in capital sentencing ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1989 ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.