Bower v. Texas

**Question presented** Did Texas’s “special‑issues” sentencing scheme, which let a jury answer only two questions about a defendant’s intent and future danger, violate the Constitution’s ban on imposing the death penalty without letting the jury consider all of the defendant’s mitigating evidence – the same problem the Court found in *Penry v. Lynaugh*? **Holding** The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of **certiorari** (the Court’s agreement to hear the case). In other words, the Court chose not to review the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision upholding Bower’s death sentence. **Why the Court denied review** The Court issued a brief order denying certiorari and did not publish a detailed opinion, so the precise reasons are not set out in the record. When the Court denies certiorari, it usually does so because it does not see a compelling federal question, thinks the lower‑court decision is adequate, or believes the issue is not ready for review. No vote count or list of justices joining a majority or dissent is provided in the material we have. **Justice Breyer’s dissent (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor)** Justice Breyer argued that *Penry* requires a sentencing procedure that lets the jury actually weigh any mitigating evidence—facts about the defendant’s character, background, or circumstances that might argue against death. He said Texas’s two‑question format still prevented the jury from doing that, just as it had in *Penry*. Because Bower presented the same kind of mitigating evidence (his age, family ties, good conduct, lack of prior record), Breyer believed the Texas system was unconstitutional in Bower’s case and that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. In short, the majority (by denying certiorari) left the Texas court’s ruling in place; the dissent warned that the same constitutional flaw identified in *Penry* still existed for Bower and should have been corrected.