Tison v. Arizona

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Criminal Law

481 U.S. 137 (1987)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawfelony murderdeath penaltyEighth Amendmentcapital punishmentaccomplice liabilityreckless indifferencemajor participation

Facts

Petitioners Ricky and Raymond Tison helped arm and carry out their father Gary Tison's prison escape, bringing guns into prison for Gary and his cellmate Greenawalt, both convicted murderers. Later, when the escape group's car broke down, the group flagged down a family on the highway, kidnapped and robbed them, moved them into the desert, and petitioners actively participated in the kidnapping and robbery while present at the scene. Gary Tison and Greenawalt then shot and killed the four victims; petitioners neither fired the fatal shots nor specifically intended to kill under the traditional meaning of intent, but they did nothing to assist the victims and continued fleeing with the killers. The trial court found each petitioner's participation in the felony was very substantial and that each could reasonably have foreseen that his conduct would create a grave risk of death.

Issue

Whether the Eighth Amendment permits the death penalty for felony-murder participants who neither killed, attempted to kill, nor specifically intended to kill, but whose participation in the felony was major and whose mental state may have been reckless indifference to human life. Also, whether the Arizona Supreme Court correctly applied Enmund by defining intent to kill as anticipating that lethal force might be used.

Rule

The Eighth Amendment does not require a finding of traditional intent to kill in every felony-murder capital case. Major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy Enmund's culpability requirement; mere foreseeability that lethal force might be used is not the same as intent to kill.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nolan Pierce helps plan an armed warehouse robbery, supplies rifles to two accomplices he knows have committed prior violent felonies, and goes inside with them. During the robbery, Nolan holds workers at gunpoint while one accomplice suddenly shoots a guard; Nolan neither fires nor orders the shooting, but he keeps the workers restrained and flees with the shooters.

Assuming Nolan is convicted of felony murder, which statement best describes whether the Eighth Amendment permits a death sentence?

Explanation. The majority held that the Eighth Amendment allows capital punishment for a felony-murder defendant who did not kill, attempt to kill, or specifically intend to kill if the defendant was a major participant in the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Mere nontriggerman status does not categorically bar death, but neither does mere participation alone suffice.