Respondent was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a South Carolina court. The prosecutors closing argument at the sentencing phase included his reading to the jury at length from a religious tract the victim was carrying and comments on the personal qualities that the prosecutor inferred from the victims possession of the religious tract and a voter registration card. Finding that the prosecutors "extensive comments to the jury regarding the victims character were unnecessary to an understanding of the circumstances of the crime," the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that those comments "conveyed the suggestion [respondent] deserved a death sentence because the victim was a religious man and a registered voter," and, in reliance on Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, reversed respondents death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding.

Held:

"For purposes of imposing the death penalty . . . [the defendants] punishment must be tailored to his personal responsibility and moral guilt." Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801. Here, the prosecutors comments concerned the victims personal characteristics, and "[a]llowing the jury to rely on [this information] . . . could result in imposing the death sentence because of factors about which the defendant was unaware, and that were irrelevant to the decision to kill." Booth v. Maryland, supra, at 505. The content of the religious tract and the voter registration card could not possibly have been relevant to the "circumstances of the crime." Where there was no evidence that respondent read either the tract or the voter card, the content of the papers the victim was carrying was purely fortuitous and could not provide any information relevant to respondents moral culpability, notwithstanding that the papers had been admitted in evidence for other purposes. Pp. 810-812.

295 S. C. 476, 369 S. E. 2d 140, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 812. OCONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined, post, p. 812. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 823. [490 U.S. 805, 806]

Donald J. Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General of South Carolina, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General, and Charles M. Condon.

William Isaac Diggs argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Joseph L. Savitz III.*

[Footnote *] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Center for Civil Rights et al. by Clint Bolick, Jerald L. Hill, and Mark Bredemeier; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Richard K. Willard, Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. by Julius LeVonne Chambers, George Kendall, Eric Schnapper, and Vivian Berger; and for the South Carolina Public Defenders Association et al. by David I. Bruck and John H. Blume. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of California et al. by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California, Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Michael D. Wellington and Frederick R. Millar, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Don Siegelman, Attorney General of Alabama, John J. Kelly, Chief States Attorney of Connecticut, Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia, Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General of Kentucky, J. Joseph Curran, Attorney General of Maryland, William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, Brian McKay, Attorney General of Nevada, W. Cary Edwards, At