Hamm v. Smith, 604 U.S. ___ (2024)
Docket No.
23-167
Decided:
November 4, 2024
Opinions
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JOHN Q. HAMM, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS v. JOSEPH CLIFTON SMITH
on petition for writ of certiorari to the
united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 23–167. Decided November 4, 2024
Per Curiam.
Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death for
the murder of Durk Van Dam. The U. S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith’s death sentence after
concluding that he is intellectually disabled. See Atkins v.
Virginia, 536 U.S.
304 (2002). Smith has obtained five full-scale IQ scores,
ranging from 72 to 78. Smith’s claim of intellectual disability
depended in part on whether his IQ is 70 or below. The District
Court found that Smith’s IQ could be as low as 69 given the
standard error of measurement for his lowest score of 72. The
District Court then vacated the death sentence, and the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Smith v.
Commissioner, Ala. Dept. of Corrections, 67 F. 4th 1335,
1354 (2023).
Analyzing Smith’s intellectual functioning
requires evaluating his various IQ scores. In Hall v.
Florida, 572 U.S.
701, 714 (2014), this Court stated that “when a person has
taken multiple tests, each separate score must be assessed”
considering the standard error of measurement. The Court further
noted that “the analysis of multiple IQ scores jointly is a
complicated endeavor.” Ibid. This Court has not specified
how courts should evaluate multiple IQ scores. See ibid.;
Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 (2017); Brumfield
v. Cain, 576 U.S.
305 (2015).
The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion can be read in
two ways. On the one hand, the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion might be
read to afford conclusive weight to the fact that the lower end of
the standard-error range for Smith’s lowest IQ score is 69. That
analysis would suggest a per se rule that the lower end
of the standard-error range for an offender’s lowest score is
dispositive. On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit also
approvingly cited the District Court’s determination that Smith’s
lowest score is not an outlier when considered together with his
higher scores. That analysis would suggest a more holistic approach
to multiple IQ scores that considers the relevant evidence,
including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony.
The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion is unclear on
this point, and this Court’s ultimate assessment of any petition
for certiorari by the State may depend on the basis for the
Eleventh Circuit’s decision. Therefore, we grant the petition for
certiorari and Smith’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, vacate the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, and
remand the case for further consideration consistent with this
opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would grant
the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for
argument.
Materials
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED. |
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration consistent with the opinion of the Court. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for argument. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/28/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/23/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2024. |
Record received from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (2 boxes). |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024. |
Electronic record received from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. |
Record Requested. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2023. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/17/2023. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2023. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2023. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023. |
Reply of petitioner Commissioner, Alabama Dept. of Corrections filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Idaho, et. al. filed. |
Brief of respondent Joseph Clifton Smith in opposition filed. |
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Joseph Clifton Smith. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 20, 2023) |
Search This Case