ALBANY – Murderers no longer face the death penalty in New York now that the state’s highest court has found a provision of the 9-year-old capital punishment law to be unconstitutional.

The 4-3 ruling from the Court of Appeals voids the sentences of four men sitting on death row, removes the possibility of execution in nine pending cases, and prevents prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in any future killings – until state lawmakers find a way to repair the statute.

Senate Republicans deplored the decision and promised to restore capital punishment as quickly as possible.

Governor Pataki and Assembly Democrats reacted more cautiously, expressing disappointment in the ruling but saying they wanted to review the decision before deciding what steps to take.

The ruling forces New York lawmakers to restate their positions on capital punishment at a time of plunging crime rates and shifting public opinion – and with all 212 members of the Assembly and Senate up for re-election in the fall.

It also adds to a lengthy to-do list for the Legislature, which is three months late in adopting a state budget.

Yesterday’s ruling came in the case of Stephen LaValle, a Suffolk County man who raped and murdered a jogger in Yaphank in May 1997.

The high court did not overturn his conviction or find any significant judicial errors, but declared that sentencing procedures in the 1995 law violate the “due process” clause of the state constitution by improperly pressuring jurors to support execution.

The law calls for jurors, after finding someone guilty of first-degree murder, to choose between two possible punishments: the death penalty, or life in prison without parole.

Before they begin deliberations, the judge must also explain what happens if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict: The convict will be sentenced to life, but could eventually be paroled.

Under these conditions, the court reasoned, jurors who prefer life imprisonment might switch their vote to avoid a deadlock.

Writing for the majority, Judge George Bundy Smith said the mandatory instruction to the jury “interjects the fear that if jurors do not reach unanimity, the defendant may be paroled after 20 years and pose a threat to society in the future.”

He said those who prefer a life sentence without parole face “a Hobson’s choice in light of the jurors’ likely concerns over defendant’s future dangerousness.”

The court further ruled that jurors must be told the consequences of a deadlock, but left it to the Legislature to devise a new sentencing procedure.

In dissent, Judge Robert Smith argued that any warning to the jury about the consequences of a deadlock is bound to affect its deliberations and contended that New York’s statute, while unique, falls within case law established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The majority has gone much further than anything in death penalty jurisprudence, or the principles underlying it, can justify,” wrote Mr. Smith, who once represented death penalty defendants in the Supreme Court. “Today’s decision, in our view, elevates judicial distaste for the death penalty over the legislative will.”

Death penalty opponents welcomed the ruling as an opportunity for New York to rethink the law, and called for a nonpartisan study of the fairness and effectiveness of capital punishment before considering legislation.

“Now is not the time for the Legislature to rush in with an expanded and even harsher death-penalty law,” said the assistant director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, Thomas Boland. “Rather, we should carefully scrutinize [its] flaws, as other states have done and are in the process of doing.”

Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno called the decision “irresponsible,” saying it “could ultimately jeopardize the lives of New Yorkers by placing dangerous, violent criminals back on the streets.”

“I hope the Assembly will join us in an effort to restore the death penalty law, which is supported by an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers,” he said.

A statement from the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, noted that the Assembly supported the law in 1995 and voted to add terrorism to the list of capital crimes in 2001. “I am certain that…we will take appropriate action to address the issue raised today by the court,” Mr. Silver said.

Mr. Pataki was similarly circumspect.

He called it a “disappointing decision,” and suggested the threat of execution had helped reduce the state’s crime rate to its lowest level since the 1960s. Asked if he would submit legislation to restore the law, he said: “Well I’d have to review the decision to make that determination.”

The court’s objection to the sentencing provision does not come as a surprise to lawmakers. Mr. Pataki submitted legislation four years ago to modify the death penalty law. One provision would have given judges, in the event of a jury deadlock, the option of sentencing first-degree murders to prison without parole.

A professor who studies the Court of Appeals, Vincent Bonventre of Albany Law School, said he’s not surprised the court ruled against the “screwy scheme” in the current law.

“It doesn’t seem to make any sense,” Mr. Bonventre said. “If the jurors had a choice – death, life without parole, life with the possibility of parole…then it would probably be okay.”

“This decision will frustrate a lot of people, but it’s the correct one,” said a death penalty expert at New York University Law School, Professor Brian Stevenson.

A sponsor of the 1995 law, Buffalo area Senator Dale Volker, said the court was guilty of “judicial activism.”

“I look at the decision as a clear indication that this Court of Appeals is never going to execute anybody,” Mr. Volker said. “They have decided they are going to ignore the law.”