Hamm v. Smith · ¶8

A few years later, this Court held in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002), that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute an individual who is intellectually disabled. In so holding, the Court largely left it to the States to “ `develo[p] appropriate ways to enforce' ” this limitation. Id., at 317. The Alabama Supreme Court responded by adopting a definition of intellectual disability that requires the defendant to prove three prongs, all by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ of 70 or below)”; (2) “significant or substantial defcits in adaptive behavior”; and (3) manifestation of “these problems . . . during the developmental period (i. e., before the defendant reached age 18).” Ex parte Perkins, 851 So. 2d 453, 456 (2002).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.