Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989)

E576851

United States Supreme Court case criminal law case death penalty case

Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment did not categorically bar the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities, a stance later reversed by Atkins v. Virginia.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Penry v. Lynaugh	1
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) canonical	1

Statements (45)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal law case ⓘ death penalty case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	capital punishment ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ
arguedDate	1988-10-11 ⓘ
citation	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 ⓘ
dissentingJustices	Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ
docketNumber	87-6177 ⓘ
holding	Texas’s special-issue 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 does not categorically prohibit the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ
jurisdiction	Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ
languageOfOpinion	English ⓘ
legalIssue	Whether Texas’s capital sentencing instructions permitted adequate consideration of mitigating evidence ⓘ Whether execution of a person with intellectual disability violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ
originatingCourt	United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit NERFINISHED ⓘ
petitioner	Johnny Paul Penry NERFINISHED ⓘ
rearguedDate	1989-03-27 ⓘ
relatedCase	Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) NERFINISHED ⓘ Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) NERFINISHED ⓘ
respondent	James A. Lynaugh NERFINISHED ⓘ
respondentOffice	Director, Texas Department of Corrections NERFINISHED ⓘ
result	Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part ⓘ
subsequentHistory	Position on categorical execution of persons with intellectual disabilities overruled by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) ⓘ
topic	intellectual disability and the death penalty ⓘ mitigating evidence in capital sentencing ⓘ
vote	5–4 on the adequacy of Texas’s sentencing instructions ⓘ 6–3 on the Eighth Amendment categorical bar question ⓘ

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

opinion in Atkins v. Virginia → overruledPrecedentCitation → Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) ⓘ

Atkins v. Virginia → overruledPrecedent → Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) ⓘ

this entity surface form: Penry v. Lynaugh