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. H