A Case for Harmless Review of Ake Errors

By Brown, Kristen | Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Spring 1997 | Go to article overview

A Case for Harmless Review of Ake Errors


Brown, Kristen, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology


I. INTRODUCTION

In Tuggle v. Netherland,(1) the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Virginia's use of a psychiatric expert's testimony at trial to prove part of its case against Tuggle, an indigent capital defendant, was an Ake error(2) because the trial judge denied funds for Tuggle to hire a rebuttal expert.(3) The Court then remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether that error was harmless.(4) The Fourth Circuit held that it was harmless(5) and the Supreme Court agreed on appeal.(6)

Tuggle's case illustrates precisely why harmlessness review of an Ake error is appropriate. Tuggle's sentencing jury heard both property and improperly admitted evidence.(7) Considering that evidence within the parameters of Virginia's statutory scheme, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: vileness of the crime and future dangerousness of the defendant.(8) The improperly admitted evidence about Tuggle's future dangerousness(9) was unrelated to the jury's decision that the murder was vile.(10) Since a Virginia capital sentence can stand even if supported by only one aggravating circumstance, the improper evidence was indeed harmless because it invalidated only the "future dangerousness" aggravator.(11)

As this case illustrates, there are times where an appellate court should perform harmless error analysis of Ake errors. Rather than automatically going through a complete resentencing, the reviewing court should decide whether the error infected the jury's deliberation so thoroughly that it caused an unconstitutional defect in the trial.

The saga of Lem Tuggle came to a close on December 12, 1996. Twelve years after his conviction for the rape and murder of Jessie Geneva Havens, Tuggle was executed by the state of Virginia.(12)

II. BACKGROUND

A. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN CAPITAL CASES SINCE FURMAN V. GEORGIA

When the United States Supreme Court invalidated the Georgia and Texas capital punishment statutes in 1972,(13) it in effect abolished capital punishment as it then existed in the United States.(14) The Furman Court held, in a one paragraph per curiam opinion, that the challenged state laws constituted cruel and unusual punishment(15) as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.(16) The essence of the concurring opinions(17) was that the language of the statutes was overly broad.(18) In particular, the Court pointed to the statutes' potential for allowing (1) too many or too few capital sentences and (2) capital sentences out of proportion with the crime.(19)

1. Overinclusion and Underinclusion

The justices objected to the statutes' failure to limit or channel the sentencer's discretion.(20) Because the statutory parameters for imposing the death penalty were vague,(21) sentencing bodies exercised a great deal of discretion in their decision-making and invoked the punishment inconsistently.(22) The result was two common problems with capital sentences: overinclusion and underinclusion.(23) Overinclusion occurs when nearly any killing can qualify for capital punishment.(24) Underinclusion is the imposition of the death penalty inconsistently from one trial to the next, resulting in less harsh penalties for equally heinous crimes.(25) When the Court upheld some revised capital statutes four years later, it reiterated that overinclusion and underinclusion create arbitrary and capricious results that violate the fundamental notions of fairness protected by the Eighth Amendment.(26)

2. Proportionally

The Court also banned death sentences unless the defendant was a major participant in a dangerous felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life; that is, the punishment had to be proportional to the crime.(27) At one point, the Court construed the proportionality doctrine so narrowly that only those who had killed, attempted to kill or intended to kill another human were eligible for the death penalty. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

A Case for Harmless Review of Ake Errors
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.