1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE Supreme Court of Georgia, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE PURPOSE: The appellate court fashions a correction of trial court error by sending a murder case back for resentencing without overturning the conviction.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE CAUSE OF ACTION: Murder.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE FACTS: Anthony Carruthers was convicted of the malice murder of Jannette Williams (sliced her throat and stabbed her eleven times in the chest) and sentenced to death. The assistant district attorney during the sentencing phase of the trial urged the jury to follow mandates of the Bible in awarding Carruthers the death penalty.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE ISSUE: Whether the prosecutor’s remarks about the Bible were sufficiently prejudicial to the defendant to reverse the imposition of the death penalty.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE HOLDING: Yes, Georgia law provides statutory guidance as to the criteria to be considered by the jury in recommending life imprisonment or the death penalty.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE REASONING: In citing passages from the Bible, the prosecutor “invoked a higher moral authority and diverted the jury from the discretion provided to them under state law.” Carruthers’ right to due process as secured by the Georgia Constitution, and the Constitution of the United States was abridged when the trial court allowed the inappropriate arguments from the Bible over objection. Remanded for resentencing.

8. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE DISSENT: “The prosecutor used Biblical references only to illustrate the historical and moral underpinnings of deterrence as a justifying factor for imposing the death penalty. He did not improperly argue that Carruthers deserved to die for any reason other than that authorized under the secular law of this state. Instead, he made only an emotional exhortation that our contemporary reliance upon the deterrent effect of capital punishment has its roots in religious teachings. In the State's argument, the Bible did not supplant applicable statutes, but rather explicated those enactments.”