High Court Rules for Truth in Sentencing : Trials: The justices overturn a South Carolina man’s death sentence because jurors were not told that he was ineligible for parole.

The Supreme Court, insisting on truth in sentencing, ruled Friday that jurors may not be fooled into thinking that a convicted killer eventually will go free if they do not sentence him to die.

The 7-2 decision overturned a South Carolina man’s death sentence on grounds that prosecutors and the judge had refused to tell the jurors that, regardless of their sentence, the defendant would never again be a free man.

The Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law is violated by the state’s “refusal to provide the jury with accurate information” about the defendant, wrote Justice Harry A. Blackmun for the court.

The ruling may require new sentencing hearings for some Death Row inmates in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas, attorneys said. In those states, jurors in death sentencing hearings are not told if the defendant is ineligible for parole. Jurors might choose the death sentence for fear that the convicted killer might otherwise eventually go free and pose a danger to society, defense lawyers said.

The ruling is unlikely to have much impact in California, where, by law, jurors in capital cases are told they must choose either a death sentence or life in prison without parole. The possibility that the defendant will go free is not an issue.

Friday’s ruling in the case (Simmons vs. South Carolina, 92-9059) represented a rare occasion when the Supreme Court has overturned a death sentence. It illustrated how jurors could be confused about the meaning of a simple phrase: “life in prison.”

Only 7% of adults in South Carolina believed that “life in prison” really means that a defendant will stay behind bars until he dies, according to a poll cited in the opinion. The vast majority realize that a defendant given a life term might be paroled later.

But many states, as well as federal sentencing guidelines, have abolished parole for some crimes. In those cases, life in prison can mean just that.

In the case before the Supreme Court, Jonathan D. Simmons had pleaded guilty in 1990 to two sexual assaults before being tried for the murder of an elderly woman. Because he was twice guilty of an assault, he would be kept in prison for life without parole if he had a third strike on his record, according to South Carolina law.

The third strike came with his murder conviction.

During his sentencing hearing, the prosecutor stressed that Simmons was a “threat . . . in our midst.” His defense attorney was told he could not tell the jurors that Simmons, if not sentenced to death, would be kept in prison for life without eligibility for parole.

Shortly after beginning deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if a life sentence would carry with it the possibility of parole. Rather than answering that it would not, the judge replied: “Do not consider parole or parole eligibility.”

Twenty-five minutes later, the jury returned a death sentence.

In reversing the sentence, the justices agreed that if jurors are told about the defendant’s “future dangerousness,” they must also be told if he is not eligible for parole.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, complaining that the decision opened “another front in the guerrilla war” against the death penalty.

In other rulings, the court:

* Insisted that the Federal Communications Commission maintain fixed rates for all long-distance telephone service (MCI vs. AT&T;, 93-356). In a 5-3 decision, the justices reversed an FCC policy that allowed MCI and other companies to negotiate lower rates while AT&T; was required to follow its fixed rates.

* Struck down, 7 to 2, a Massachusetts law that subsidizes milk produced in the state (West Lynn Creamery vs. Healy, 93-141). The Constitution does not allow a state to protect its product “from the rigors of interstate competition,” the court held.