Supreme Court decision on juvenile sentencing results in cruel and unusual difficulties for Missouri.

• Author: Peebles, Andrew T.
• Position: Case note

1. INTRODUCTION

   Many Americans are familiar with the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" as it is used in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But far fewer are acquainted with the history behind these words and the difficulty the Supreme Court of the United States has had in giving definition to this broad phrase. Since the ratification of this amendment in 1791, the Court has drawn and re-drawn the boundaries of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" forbidden by the Constitution, tending to exhibit an increasing sense of decency in the punishments it allows for certain crimes. Most recently, the Court continued this trend by holding in Miller v. Alabama that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to life without parole ("LWOP") until the sentencer considers certain mitigating factors, such as the youthful characteristics of the offender. (1)

   While the Court's progress can be seen as a beneficial furtherance of civility in an increasingly advanced society, this constant change in the law creates havoc for the states as they struggle to amend their statutes to comply with the Court's most recent decision. After Miller, for example, twenty-nine states saw their mandatory sentencing statutes invalidated, requiring immediate, complicated revisions of their criminal codes. (2) In Missouri, this struggle began when the Supreme Court of Missouri decided State v. Hart, a case applying the Miller decision to state law. (3) As a result of this decision and the resulting invalidation of state law, Missouri's criminal justice system faces several problems that must be dealt with immediately. (4) To comply with the Supreme Court's most recent Eighth Amendment decision and to resolve these complications, it is vital that the Missouri Legislature revise its criminal code in several ways. This Note discusses those problems and provides guidance to lawmakers as they attempt to adjust to the current state of the law.

   Part II gives a brief background of the facts and circumstances surrounding the Hart decision. Part III discusses the history of the Eighth Amendment and explores the U.S. Supreme Court's trend toward leniency in the imposition of punishments, culminating with a discussion of the Miller decision. Part IV delves into the Supreme Court of Missouri's reasoning behind its decision in Hart and the temporary sentencing procedures the court provided. Finally, Part V comments on the many problems currently facing Missouri's criminal justice system since the implementation of the Miller decision and the actions that will be required by the legislature in revising the state's criminal code in order to remedy these problems.

2. FACTS AND HOLDING

   On the evening of January 24, 2010, seventeen-year-old Laron Hart participated in two separate armed robberies in St. Louis, Missouri. (5) Hart first approached Ms. Hellrich while she was entering her car, demanding her purse and brandishing a handgun to convince her to hand it over. (6) While Hart ran to his stolen blue Oldsmobile Cutlass to leave the scene, Hellrich quickly called the police. (7) Shortly after this robbery and a short distance away, Hart jumped from his Cutlass and approached Mr. Sindelar from behind. (8) Upon grabbing the man's backpack, Sindelar began to struggle and call for help, whereupon Hart pulled out his gun and fired a single, fatal shot into Sindelar's chest. (9) Hart returned to his car and drove away, leaving Sindelar to die. (10)

   The next morning, St. Louis police stopped the blue Cutlass following a lengthy chase through rush-hour traffic. (11) Although Hart was not one of the occupants of the car, Hellrich's belongings were found inside. (12) Based on the descriptions given by Hellrich and a witness to Sindelar's murder, police soon arrested Hart, who was subsequently identified by Hellrich and the eyewitness in a police lineup. (13) During a videotaped interrogation, Hart initially denied any involvement in the robberies. (14) When confronted with evidence against him, however, Hart admitted to being present at both robberies, knowing that the robberies would occur beforehand, being outside the car and near the victims during both robberies, and watching an accomplice shoot Sindelar. (15) During the interrogation, Hart consistently denied that he shot Sindelar. (16)

   At trial, Hart argued that the incriminating statements he made during the interrogation were compelled and he offered alibi evidence to prove that he was not involved in either robbery. (17) The jury failed to give weight to this evidence and found Hart guilty of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action for the Hellrich robbery, and first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the murder of Sindelar. (18) Thus, the jury found, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hart had killed Sindelar knowingly and deliberately after cool reflection on the matter. (19)

   Since Hart had waived jury sentencing prior to trial, he chose to have the trial court decide his punishment if the jury found him guilty of any charges. (20) Because Hart was ineligible for the death penalty due to his age, (21) the only other punishment for first-degree murder authorized by Missouri law was life in prison with no possibility of parole. (22) At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Hart was sentenced to LWOP and to concurrent thirty-year sentences. (23)

   Hart appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and armed criminal action to the court of appeals. (24) While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Miller v. Alabama. (25) Hart pointed out that Roper v. Simmons bars juvenile offenders from being sentenced to death (26) and claimed that the recent Miller decision reaches the same conclusion with respect to life sentences without parole. (27) He therefore argued that both punishments authorized by Section 565.020--Missouri's first-degree murder statute--have been declared unconstitutional for juvenile offenders, (28) and as a result of there being no valid punishment therein, the statute was void as applied. (29) Hart argued that this fact made his conviction under the statute unconstitutional. (30) Due to these arguments, the state moved to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri pursuant to Article V, Sections 3 and 11 of the Missouri Constitution. (31)

   The Supreme Court of Missouri, in an opinion by Judge Paul Wilson, held that the trial court's sentencing of Hart to life imprisonment without parole violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. (32) The court stated that the constitutional defect in Hart's sentence for first-degree murder was not its length or the fact that he would be ineligible for parole, but that "it was imposed without any opportunity for the sentencer (33) to consider whether this punishment [was] just and appropriate in light of Hart's age, maturity, and the other factors discussed in Miller." (34) The court disagreed with Hart that Section 565.020 is void of any valid punishment as applied to juveniles, holding that LWOP is still a valid sentence as long as the factors in Miller are considered. (35) The court therefore remanded the case to the trial court for re-sentencing for the first-degree murder conviction. (36) Thus, whenever a juvenile offender is convicted of first-degree murder, the punishment of life imprisonment without parole is constitutionally permissible as long as the sentencer employs the individualized analysis required by Miller to determine whether such a punishment is just and appropriate under the circumstances.

3. LEGAL BACKGROUND

   1. History and Text of the Eighth Amendment

      The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." (37) When the Constitutional Convention ratified this language in 1791, the framers were drawing on ideals and principles that can be traced back to as early as the eleventh century. (38) The English Magna Carta of 1215 was also an important influence on the framers of the Constitution, serving "to inspire and justify action in liberty's defense" and serving as a template for the language used in the American document. (39) But universally acknowledged as the greatest influence on the passage of the Eighth Amendment was Article 10 of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the language of which was almost identical to that adopted by the framers. (40)

      During the late seventeenth century, England was suffering a series of abuses inflicted by King James II related to religious persecution and his plans to act as an absolute monarch. (41) James II was deposed during the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 and replaced by William III and Mary II, permanently establishing Parliament as the ruling power in England. (42) It has been stated that the "[a]buses during the reign of James II ... provided the historical background of the provisions of the [English] Bill of Rights." (43) This document, drawn up after James II fled the country, was designed to prevent a reappearance of such abuses in England. (44) This text, including the language that was to become the United States' Eighth Amendment, (45) had a profound effect on the American founders in 1787, men who were fighting a similar battle to prevent a reoccurrence of the oppression of King George III. (46)

      The first adoption of this language from the English Bill of Rights was in Virginia, where the Virginia Convention, meeting in Williamsburg in 1776, enacted the Virginia Declaration of Rights. (47) This document, passed in the heat of rebellion against British oppression of the American colonies, espoused the inherent and natural rights of men, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. (48) The Virginia Convention that ratified the newly-formed Constitution of 1787, led by James Madison and George Mason, insisted that this...