501 U.S. 624 (1991)
In August 1978, a highway worker discovered the badly decomposed body of 74-year-old Lorimer Grove off U.S. Highway 89 near Prescott, Arizona, with a rope around his neck indicating strangulation.1 Grove had left his home in Bisbee eight days earlier driving a new Cadillac and towing a camper.2
On September 3, 1978, Edward Harold Schad was stopped for speeding in New York while driving Grove's Cadillac and claimed he was transporting it for an elderly friend.3 Later that month in Salt Lake City, Schad was arrested for a parole violation and possession of a stolen vehicle, with Grove's personal belongings and credit cards found in his possession.4
A Yavapai County grand jury indicted Schad on one count of first-degree murder, leading to his extradition for trial.5 After his initial conviction and death sentence were set aside on collateral review, the case proceeded to retrial where the prosecution presented both premeditated murder and felony murder theories based on robbery.6
At the retrial, the court instructed the jury on first-degree murder as either the result of premeditation or committed in the attempt to commit robbery, requiring unanimous agreement on the verdict but not on the specific theory.7 The defense sought but was denied an instruction on theft as a lesser included offense, though the jury received an instruction on second-degree murder.8
The jury convicted Schad of first-degree murder, after which the judge imposed a death sentence.9 The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.10
Whether a first-degree murder conviction under jury instructions that did not require agreement on whether the defendant was guilty of premeditated murder or felony murder is unconstitutional?11
The Due Process Clause permits a State to define first-degree murder as a single offense.12 This offense may be committed by alternative means of premeditated murder or felony murder.13 Jury unanimity on the specific means is not required.14 The means must be morally equivalent and enjoy historical acceptance as alternative ways to satisfy the mens rea element.15
No. Arizona defined first-degree murder as a single crime under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-452 that could be committed either by premeditation or in the perpetration of robbery.16
The jury instructions at Schad's retrial presented both theories and required only unanimous agreement on the verdict of first-degree murder.17 The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.18 Premeditation and felony murder have long been treated as alternative means of proving the single mens rea element of first-degree murder at common law and in the statutes of most States.19 Both reflect equivalent culpability when the underlying felony is robbery.20
The conviction is constitutional.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment. He emphasized that the practice of submitting premeditated murder and felony murder under a single charge has existed since the early sixteenth century.22 This practice was the norm when the country was founded and when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868.23
Scalia rejected any fundamental-fairness review that would override this longstanding historical practice.24 He concluded that the Due Process Clause requires only adherence to the settled course of judicial proceedings.25
Joined by Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, And Justice Stevens
Justice White dissented on the ground that premeditated murder and felony murder contain distinct elements of conduct and state of mind that cannot be mixed and matched.26 He argued that a general verdict leaves open the possibility that no single element except the fact of a killing was found by a majority of the jury.27 This result violates the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime under In re Winship.28
White maintained that the State must be held to its choice of separate statutory alternatives.29
Whether the principle recognized in Beck v. Alabama entitles a defendant to instructions on all offenses that are lesser than, and included within, a capital offense as charged?30
Beck v. Alabama requires a lesser-included-offense instruction in capital cases only when the jury is faced with an all-or-nothing choice between capital murder and acquittal.31 The instruction is not required when the jury is already given a noncapital lesser-included offense that eliminates the risk of an irrational capital verdict.32
No. The jury at Schad's retrial was instructed on second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated first-degree murder.33 Because the jury had this third option short of capital murder or acquittal, the central concern of Beck was not implicated.34 Robbery was not a lesser included offense of felony murder under Arizona law.35 The second-degree murder instruction sufficed to protect verdict reliability.36
Beck does not require an instruction on robbery.37
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia joined Part III of the opinion addressing the Beck claim.38 He agreed with the analysis that the second-degree murder instruction satisfied any due-process concerns arising from Beck v. Alabama.39 The jury was not faced with an all-or-nothing choice between capital murder and acquittal, so the instruction ensured verdict reliability.40
Scalia viewed the availability of the second-degree murder option as fully consistent with historical due-process requirements.
Joined by Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, And Justice Stevens
Justice White dissented on the ground that second-degree murder is not a lesser included offense of felony murder/robbery under Arizona law.41 He concluded that when the State proceeds on alternative theories, Beck requires a lesser-included instruction on each theory supported by the evidence.42 This includes robbery as a lesser included offense of felony murder/robbery.43
Anything less renders Beck and the due process it guarantees meaningless.44 White stressed that the evidence supported a robbery instruction and that due process demanded it to avoid an all-or-nothing choice on the felony-murder theory.