By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Mandatory life without parole sentences for felony murder convictions before a 1980 court decision could be unconstitutional if certain conditions are met, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 5-1 decision in People v. Langston (SC Docket No. 163968) means some individuals serving mandatory life without parole could become eligible to leave prison after decades. One advocate said an estimated 80-100 individuals are serving life without parole for pre-1980 convictions.
In 1980, the Supreme Court decided People v. Aaron and held that malice is a required element for any murder, including felony murder. The decision applied prospectively and individuals sentenced to life without parole before the decision did not have the same requirement, including the defendant in Langston, who argued the jury in his case was not instructed to determine if he acted with malice.
The Supreme Court majority, in an opinion written by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, ruled mandatory life without parole sentences for felony murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment if the defendant can establish that the jury was not instructed on malice. If the jury did not receive those instructions, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with malice.
If those conditions are not met, then the individual is eligible for parole consideration.
“We conclude that striking the no-parole element is the most appropriate remedy under these circumstances for any defendants whose sentences are deemed constitutionally invalid,” Bolden wrote.
“This remedy balances our judicial obligation to right the constitutional wrong with the recognition that the choice of available criminal punishment is generally within the Legislature’s purview.”
Langston challenged his conviction several times after being sentenced in 1976, and the Supreme Court either affirmed his sentence or denied leave to appeal. In 2024, he appealed again, and the Supreme Court ordered oral arguments.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh wrote separately, saying she would have required all defendants who could prove their juries did not receive instructions on malice to be eligible for parole.
“I would not ask a judge to retroactively decide whether a jury ‘would have’ found that defendant acted with post-Aaron malice,” she wrote.
Justice Brian Zahra dissented. He wrote the Supreme Court was clear in 1980 when it decided Aaron that the decision was prospective only.
“The majority is simply rewriting history to afford defendant relief for the same error that this court plainly considered and long ago rejected,” Zahra wrote. “Another way to view the majority opinion is that it is correcting a perceived wrong in Aaron’s retroactivity decision, thereby providing defendants convicted before Aaron with a path to judicially commute their sentences. A claim steeped in equity and fairness over a nearly 50-year-old conviction and sentence is a dubious basis upon which to interpret Michigan’s Constitution.”
Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Noah Hood signed the majority opinion. Justice Kimberly Thomas did not participate in the case.
Gongwer News Service
Mandatory life without parole sentences for felony murder convictions before a 1980 court decision could be unconstitutional if certain conditions are met, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 5-1 decision in People v. Langston (SC Docket No. 163968) means some individuals serving mandatory life without parole could become eligible to leave prison after decades. One advocate said an estimated 80-100 individuals are serving life without parole for pre-1980 convictions.
In 1980, the Supreme Court decided People v. Aaron and held that malice is a required element for any murder, including felony murder. The decision applied prospectively and individuals sentenced to life without parole before the decision did not have the same requirement, including the defendant in Langston, who argued the jury in his case was not instructed to determine if he acted with malice.
The Supreme Court majority, in an opinion written by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, ruled mandatory life without parole sentences for felony murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment if the defendant can establish that the jury was not instructed on malice. If the jury did not receive those instructions, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with malice.
If those conditions are not met, then the individual is eligible for parole consideration.
“We conclude that striking the no-parole element is the most appropriate remedy under these circumstances for any defendants whose sentences are deemed constitutionally invalid,” Bolden wrote.
“This remedy balances our judicial obligation to right the constitutional wrong with the recognition that the choice of available criminal punishment is generally within the Legislature’s purview.”
Langston challenged his conviction several times after being sentenced in 1976, and the Supreme Court either affirmed his sentence or denied leave to appeal. In 2024, he appealed again, and the Supreme Court ordered oral arguments.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh wrote separately, saying she would have required all defendants who could prove their juries did not receive instructions on malice to be eligible for parole.
“I would not ask a judge to retroactively decide whether a jury ‘would have’ found that defendant acted with post-Aaron malice,” she wrote.
Justice Brian Zahra dissented. He wrote the Supreme Court was clear in 1980 when it decided Aaron that the decision was prospective only.
“The majority is simply rewriting history to afford defendant relief for the same error that this court plainly considered and long ago rejected,” Zahra wrote. “Another way to view the majority opinion is that it is correcting a perceived wrong in Aaron’s retroactivity decision, thereby providing defendants convicted before Aaron with a path to judicially commute their sentences. A claim steeped in equity and fairness over a nearly 50-year-old conviction and sentence is a dubious basis upon which to interpret Michigan’s Constitution.”
Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Noah Hood signed the majority opinion. Justice Kimberly Thomas did not participate in the case.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
