Ayers v. Belmontes

In the penalty phase of Fernando Belmontes's capital murder trial, he introduced mitigating evidence to show, among other things, that he would lead a constructive life if incarcerated rather than executed, testifying that he had done so during a previous incarceration, when he had embraced Christianity. Two prison chaplains and his Christian sponsors from that time testified on his behalf, and the parties' closing arguments discussed this mitigating evidence and how the jury should consider it. The trial judge told the jury to consider "[a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime," an instruction known as "factor (k)" under California's then-applicable statutory scheme. Respondent was sentenced to death. He contended, on direct appeal and in federal habeas proceedings, that factor (k) and the trial court's other instructions barred the jury from considering his forward-looking mitigation evidence in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to present all mitigating evidence in capital sentencing proceedings. The federal District Court denied relief, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. On reconsideration in light of Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, the Ninth Circuit again invalidated Belmontes's sentence.^[1]

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on November 13, 2006.^[1] Belmontes's death sentence was reinstated by the Supreme Court.^[2][3]