Gaskins v. McKellar, Warden
Donald H. Gaskins v. Kenneth D. McKellar Warden, South Carolina Department of Corrections
Opinion of the Court
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further consideration in light of Yates v. Evatt, ante, p. 391.
Opinion of Justice Stevens respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.
One of the questions presented in the certiorari petition is whether our per curiam decision in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39 (1990), announced a new rule. This question, however, would only be presented by the record if the instructions in this case contained the same flaw as the instructions in Cage . In Cage , the jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt “ ‘must be [a] doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty. . . .’” Id., at 40 (emphasis omitted). Because the instructions to the jury in this case did not contain this improper language, the question whether Cage announced a new rule is not actually presented here. For this rea *962 son, I think the Court has correctly decided not to grant certiorari to review that question.
Dissent
Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
500 U.S. 961 111 S.Ct. 2277 114 L.Ed.2d 728
Donald H. GASKINS, petitioner, v. Kenneth D. McKELLAR, Warden, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al
No. 90-7469
Supreme Court of the United States
June 3, 1991
Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 1991.
See U.S., 112 S.ct. 14.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Opinion of Justice STEVENS, respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.
One of the questions presented in the certiorari petition is whether our per curiam decision in Cage v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), announced a new rule. This question, however, would only be presented by the record if the instructions in this case contained the same flaw as the instructions in Cage . In Cage , the jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt "must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty. . . ." Id., at ----, 111 S.Ct., at 329. Because the instructions to the jury in this case did not contain this improper language, the question whether Cage announced a new rule is not actually presented here. For this reason, I think the Court has correctly decided not to grant certiorari to review that question.
Justice MARSHALL, dissenting:
1
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2973 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.
2
Justice BLACKMUN would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1884 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1991).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(instruction requiring "a doubt for which you can give a reason[,] [i]t is a substantial doubt" did not impermissibly raise degree of doubt for acquittal when surrounding context placed entire burden of proof on government)
Cited by 68 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court2
- U.S. Courts of Appeals20
- Federal District Courts3
- Military Courts2
- State Highest Courts11
- State Appellate Courts30
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.