People of Michigan v. Eliason, (Eighth Amendment).

The Facts of this Case:

On March 5, 2010, Dakotah Eliason, age 14, spent the weekend at the home of Jean and
Jesse “Papa” Miles, his grandmother and step-grandfather. Dakotah often spent weekends at his
grandparents' home. Jean described Dakotah as a “good grandson,” and testified that she and
Jesse had always been involved in Dakotah's life. She explained that Dakotah had a “good”
relationship with her and Jesse, and that nothing appeared to be out of the ordinary during this
particular weekend.

Jean saw Dakotah during the evening of March 6 and briefly spoke with him when he
came downstairs to use the restroom. Dakotah did not at the time appear angry or upset. At
approximately 7:30 p.m. Jean went to her bedroom to watch television; Jesse was in the living
room, where he slept, watching television. Dakotah was in an upstairs bedroom.
Jean awoke at approximately 3:00 a.m. the next morning when she heard a “pop.” Upon
awakening, she heard Dakotah's voice, and thought Dakotah told her, “I shot Papa.” The next
thing she remembered was that she had a gun in her hands; she could not recall whether Dakotah
gave her the gun or whether she picked it up. After discovering what happened, she instructed
Dakotah to call 9–1–1, and paramedics responded to the call but were unable to save Jesse.

Dakotah was arrested. When he was interviewed by the police, Dakotah stated that late in
the evening on March 6 or early in the morning on March 7, he went downstairs to get a handgun
that Jesse kept on the hook of a coat rack. Afterwards, Dakotah went back up to his room and sat
in a chair with the gun for approximately two to three hours. While he sat upstairs with the gun,
Dakotah “was contemplating homicide or suicide.” Dakotah told Kiefer that he went downstairs
and shot Jesse with the handgun while he was sleeping on the couch. Although Dakotah told
Kiefer that he shot Jesse out of “sadness” and “pent up anger,” he was not angry with Jesse or
Jean, but instead was angry with his own parents.

Additionally, Dakotah stated, “[y]ou know I wish I could take it back but now I
understand the feeling that people get when they do that. Now I understand how they feel.”
Continuing, Dakotah commented, “when you hit that point of realization for that split second you
feel like nothing could ever hurt you. Just for that split second. Once you realize what you've
done.”

Dakotah was convicted of first degree murder. He was sentenced under a Michigan law
that requires a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This
sentence means that Dakotah will spend the rest of his life in prison without any chance of
getting out of prison.

Dakotah appealed his sentence. He argued that life imprisonment for a 14 year-old
violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Dakotah argued that he must

1
be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment that is less than life in prison, and that the judge may
not sentence him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Question Presented in this Case:

The question presented in this case is whether the Eighth Amendment allows a judge to
re-sentence Dakotah to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.

Precedent Cases:

Miller v Alabama, 2011

In July 2003, Evan Miller, along with Colby Smith, killed Cole Cannon by beating
Cannon with a baseball bat and burning Cannon’s trailer while Cannon was inside. Miller was
14 years old at the time. In 2004, Miller was tried as an adult for murder during the course of an
arson. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial court sentenced Miller to a
mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Miller challenged his
sentence as being cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of
parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Children are constitutionally different from adults for
sentencing purposes. While a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate the Eighth
Amendment, a mandatory sentence would not be appropriate for a child. A child could be
sentenced to imprisonment without the possibility of parole, however, if the judge believed that
to be a justifiable sentence in the pa case. Under the Eighth Amendment, that sentence would be
unconstitutional only if it was mandatory.

The Supreme Court explained that mandatory penalties prevent the judge from
considering an offender's age and the offender’s individual characteristics and life circumstances.
With a sentence of mandatory life without parole, every juvenile receives the same sentence as
every other—the 17–year–old and the 14–year–old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child
from a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one. Every juvenile (including
these two 14–year–olds) will receive the same sentence as the vast majority of adults committing
similar homicide offenses—but really, a greater sentence than those adults will serve.

2
 Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile prohibits a sentencing judge from taking into
consideration the offender’s chronological age and its features—including immaturity,
impetuous (thoughtless) behavior, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents
taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he
cannot usually extract himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional. It neglects the
circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct
and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him. Because “youth matters in
determining the appropriateness of a lifetime of incarceration without the possibility of parole,”
sentencing courts must consider “the background and mental and emotional development” of
each individual youthful offender before passing sentence.

Therefore, under the Eighth Amendment, a sentencing court must take an offender’s
youth into account, and cannot automatically sentence the youth to mandatory life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole. A court may impose that sentence, however, if it believes that a
sentence of life imprisonment without parole is justified in an individual case, even if the
offender is under age 18.

People of Michigan v Lorentzen

Eric Lorentzen age 23, was convicted of selling a large amount of marijuana and was
given the mandatory sentence for that offense: 20 years' imprisonment. The defendant lived with
his parents, worked at General Motors, and had no other criminal convictions. The Michigan
Supreme Court held that the defendant's sentence was unconstitutional under the Michigan
Constitution, explaining that “[a] compulsory prison sentence of 20 years for a nonviolent crime
imposed without consideration for defendant's individual personality and history is so excessive
that it ‘shocks the conscience.’”

In Lorentzen the Supreme Court used a three-factor test for evaluating whether a sentence
is cruel and unusual. First, a court must weigh the severity of the offense against the severity of
the punishment. Next, a court applies the “decency test,” which compares the sentences for other
similar and different crimes, in Michigan and in other states. Finally, a court looks to
“rehabilitative considerations in criminal punishment,” recognizing that Michigan's sentencing
scheme is designed to reform criminals and to convert bad citizens into good citizens, and thus
protect society. Specifically, this test looks to a consideration of the modern policy factors
underlying criminal penalties—rehabilitation of the individual offender, society's need to deter
similar proscribed behavior in others, and the need to prevent the individual offender from
causing further injury to society.

3
Graham v Florida, 2010

When Terrance Graham was 16 years old, he and three other teenagers attempted to rob a
restaurant in Florida. When one of the restaurant workers resisted, one of Graham’s accomplices
hit the worker in the head with an iron bar. The four young men then ran from the restaurant.
The worker required stitches for his head wound. No money was actually taken.

Graham was arrested and charged as an adult with armed robbery. Graham pleaded
guilty to both charges under a plea agreement. Graham wrote a letter to the trial court. After
reciting “this is my first and last time getting in trouble,” he continued “I've decided to turn my
life around.” Graham said “I made a promise to God and myself that if I get a second chance,
I'm going to do whatever it takes to get to the NFL.” The judge sentenced Graham to three years
of probation and a few months in the jail.

Less than 6 months later, Graham was again arrested after participating in a home
invasion and robbery with two accomplices. During the home invasion Graham and the other
two men held a pistol to the homeowner’s head, ransacked the house, and then left the
homeowner inside a closet. Later that same evening, the three attempted a second robbery,
during which one of Graham’s accomplices was shot. When Graham was apprehended by the
police, he had three handguns in his car. This crime spree occurred 34 days before Graham’s
18th birthday.

Graham pleaded guilty to the new charges and the judge sentenced him to life
imprisonment without parole. Graham appealed his sentence.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that Graham’s sentence violated the Eighth
Amendment. To determine whether a sentence is cruel and unusual, the Court wrote, it is
necessary to look at the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing
society.” The standards of punishment involve moral judgments, and those moral judgments
may change as society changes. One of the standards that does not change, however, is that the
punishment should fit the crime. The Eighth Amendment forbids extreme sentences that are
grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.

The Court then looked at how other states treat life without parole sentences for juveniles
(people under the age of 18). Six states do not allow life without parole sentences for juveniles,
for any crime. Seven states prohibit life without parole sentences, except for murder. Thirty
seven other states allow life without parole sentences for juveniles under certain other
circumstances. But according to the statistics gathered by the Supreme Court, there are only 109
juveniles in the United States serving life without parole sentences for crimes other than murder.
These numbers indicate that life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of crimes less
than murder are very rare. This is strong evidence of an evolving national consensus against life
without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of crimes less than murder.

4
 Second, the Court considered whether Graham’s sentence serves the goal of proper
punishment for a crime. Because juveniles have a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense
of responsibility, they “are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside
pressures, including peer pressure”; and their characters are “not as well formed.” Parts of an
adolescent’s brain remain undeveloped until adulthood. These characteristics mean that “[i]t is
difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime
reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects
irreparable corruption.” Therefore, “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified
among the worst offenders.” A juvenile is not absolved of responsibility for his actions, but his
crimes are not as morally reprehensible as those of an adult. Also, juveniles are more capable of
change than are adults.

Life without parole is the most severe penalty permitted by law for a juvenile (many
years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth
Amendment for juveniles). Although the life without parole sentence allows a juvenile to live, it
deprives the juvenile of any hope of ever being free. This sentence “means denial of hope; it
means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the
future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the
rest of his days.”

Life without parole is also an especially harsh sentence for a juvenile because the juvenile
will spend a greater percentage of life in prison than will an adult. Although retribution is a
legitimate reason to punish, the idea of retribution is that a criminal sentence must be related to
the personal guilt of the offender. Because of the inability of juveniles to make adult-like
decisions, the idea of retribution does not support imposing a life without parole sentence on a
juvenile convicted ofless than murder.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court held that although a state is not required to
guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a crime less than murder. What
the State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to
obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. While the Eighth Amendment
forbids a State from imposing a life without parole sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender,
it does not require the State to release that offender during his natural life. Those who commit
truly horrifying crimes as juveniles may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of
incarceration for the duration of their lives. The Eighth Amendment does not eliminate the
possibility that persons convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood will
remain behind bars for life. It does forbid States from making the judgment at the outset that
those offenders never will be fit to reenter society.

5
Focus Questions

1. What is the difference between a mandatory sentence of life without parole, and a
sentence of life without parole that is not mandatory? What factors should judges use in
deciding how long to sentence anyone to prison? Should different factors apply when a judge is
considering a sentence for a juvenile (someone under 18)?

2. The courts in Lorentzen and Graham both considered whether a sentence was proper
under current standards of society. Does society look at juvenile crime differently now than it
has in the past? Do you think that it is a good idea to consider society’s standards in determining
a sentence for someone who commits a murder, even if that person is a teenager? Why or why
not?

3. In Graham the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to

sentence a teenager to life in prison without parole for committing a crime less than murder.
Why did the Supreme Court not extend this ruling to the crime of murder?

4. Under Michigan law, life without parole is the single harshest sentence that can be
imposed for any crime. Knowing this, is it justifiable under the Eighth Amendment to sentence a
teenager to life without parole, even for murder? What about in Dakotah’s case, given that he is
not a hardened criminal and when he killed his grandfather, he was an extremely troubled young
man?