The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from Texas death row inmate LaRoyce Smith even though they had reviewed his case once before. On October 6, 2006, the Court grant­ed cer­tio­rari to decide whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had applied the wrong stan­dard after the Supreme Court had sent Smith’s case back to them ear­li­er.

The dis­pute does not involve Smith’s 1991 con­vic­tion for the mur­der of a Taco Bell man­ag­er in Dallas. Rather the Supreme Court held (7 – 2) in 2004 that Texas’ jury instruc­tions did not allow the jury suf­fi­cient lat­i­tude to con­sid­er Smith’s low IQ and oth­er mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence. But instead of giv­ing Smith a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in March that the fault in the jury instruc­tions was neg­li­gi­ble because it did not cause ​“egre­gious harm” to Smith’s right to a fair tri­al, and thus upheld Smith’s death sen­tence. Texas has changed the way the jury is instruct­ed in cap­i­tal cas­es, but the change was not in effect for Smith’s sentencing.

Four for­mer fed­er­al appeals court judges sub­mit­tied an ami­cus brief urg­ing the Supreme Court to take the case a sec­ond time. The case is Smith v. Texas, No. 05 – 11304.
(Associated Press, Oct. 6, 2006). See Supreme Court.

Citation Guide