| Walton v. Arizona | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 17, 1990 Decided June 27, 1990 | |
| Full case name | Jeffrey Alan Walton v. State of Arizona |
| Citations | 497 U.S. 639 (more) 110 S. Ct. 3047; 111 L. Ed. 2d 511; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3462 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in an Arizona superior court and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence; cert. granted to U.S. Supreme Court. |
| Holding | |
| Under the Sixth Amendment, a jury need not pass on the aggravated factors required to impose a death sentence under Arizona law. Under the Eighth Amendment, the words "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" were not unconstitutionally vague because the Arizona Supreme Court had developed an adequately narrow interpretation of those words. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White (Parts I, II, V), joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Plurality | White (Parts III, IV), joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in part and in judgment) |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Stevens |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI, VIII | |
Superseded by | |
| Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) | |
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld two important aspects of the capital sentencing scheme in Arizona—judicial sentencing and the aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved"—as not unconstitutionally vague. The Court overruled the first of these holdings in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). The second holdings was not overturned.