Penry v. Lynaugh

Penry underscored the point that in capital cases--especially when they involve defendants with diminished mental capacities--factors which mitigate guilt must be taken into account. At the same time, the case stands for the proposition that the death penalty is constitutional in most such cases.

Johnny Paul Penry was moderately mentally retarded. As an adult, he had the mental maturity of a six and a half year old child. Possibly, his brain damage dated from birth; more probably it dated from his childhood, when he had been beaten and abused. On the morning of 25 October 1979, when he was 22 years old, Penry raped, beat, and fatally stabbed Pamela Carpenter in her home in Livingston, Texas. During the hearing of his murder trial, expert testimony was offered as to his mental state at the time of the killing. Dr. Jose Garcia testified that, as a result of his brain disorder, Penry suffered from poor impulse control and an inability to learn from experience. These disorders, said Dr. Garcia, made it impossible for Penry to appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts.

The state introduced expert testimony that although Penry had limited mental capacity, he was not mentally ill and that he knew right from wrong. The jury rejected Penry's insanity defense and found him guilty of capital murder. Finding that Penry had deliberately killed and would probably kill again, the jurors sentenced him to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Penry's conviction and sentence, as did two federal courts. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, stressed that it found merit in Penry's argument that the jury had not been allowed to consider all of the mitigating circumstances surrounding his crime. When Penry applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for review, the Court agreed to do so. For the justices, two questions regarding Penry's case remained unanswered: 1) whether Penry's Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the judge's failure to instruct the jury properly as to mitigating circumstances, and 2) whether it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally retarded person with Penry's capacity to reason.