Supreme Court of the United States, 1989

Bonin v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 20, 1989 · Marshall, Brennan

489 U.S. 1091; 109 S. Ct. 1561; 103 L. Ed. 2d 864; 57 U.S.L.W. 3619; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1511 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison James Rowland, Director of the California Department of Corrections (9th Cir. 1995)
People v. Pitts (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)
Michael Wayne Jennings v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin (9th Cir. 2002)
Sobeck & Associates, Inc. v. B & R Investments No. 24 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

489 U.S. 1091

109 S.Ct. 1561

103 L.Ed.2d 864

William George BONIN, petitioner,
v.
CALIFORNIA.

No. 88-6341.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 20, 1989

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Motion for Leave to File Petition for Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1989.

See 493 U.S. 914, 110 S.Ct. 272.

Justice MARSHALL, with whom Justice BRENNAN joins, 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, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2973, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not hold this view, I would grant the petition to resolve the question whether a trial court may instruct a penalty phase jury that, "[i]f you conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose a sentence of death." As I stated in Hamilton v. California, 488 U.S. 1047, 109 S.Ct. 879, 102 L.Ed.2d 1002 (1989) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing), "I have grave doubts that such an instruction permits the individualized and reliable sentencing determination that the Constitution requires in capital cases, particularly where, as here, it is coupled with prosecutorial remarks stressing the limits on jurors' discretion." Id., at 1047, 109 S.Ct. at 880. I dissent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.