SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's top court is taking up a very unique case regarding the constitutionality of a teenager sentenced to life in prison without parole.
In 2001, Morris Mullins pleaded guilty to the murder of 78-year-old Amy Davis. Just 17 years old at the time, Mullins was sentenced to life without parole.
“He admitted his guilt by pleading guilty, and for his horrific crimes he was sentenced to life without parole, or LWOP, over 20 years ago,” said Asst. Solicitor General Jeffrey D. Mann.
On Wednesday, Mullins' case was brought up at the Utah Supreme Court.
“The question on appeal is was the court wrong in finding that the sentence was not cruel and unusual?“ asked Mullins' attorney, Benjamin McMurray.
McMurray argued that the Utah Legislature abolished a juvenile being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 2016 following a similar case. He also brought up Mullins’ troubled childhood and developmental challenges, which justices questioned in relation to committing a murder.
“I guess when I look at that report, it demonstrates that his upbringing was horrific, and he suffered numerous traumas, deficiencies, but I’m not sure that that information suggests that his youth caused him to commit this crime," said Justice Jill M. Pohlman.
Meanwhile, Justice Diane Hagen asked whether a premeditated, violent attack on an elderly woman in her home is the kind of crime that reflects transient immaturity.
McMurray suggested his client didn’t have a chance to learn right from wrong.
“We have a kid whose dad, instead of teaching him how to play baseball, his dad taught him how to go rob old ladies," he said. "So if you teach him a right way of living, we have reason to believe, reason to hope that he will be different once he’s educated on the right way of living.
"His horrific upbringing shows us that he did these things because this is what he was taught to do. And he didn’t even have the intellectual capacity to respond to this in any meaningful way. His parents put him on this path and said, ‘go forth and sin.’”
The justices took the case under advisement but offered no timeline on when they may issue a ruling, knowing that whatever they decide could impact a number of cases statewide.
