Per Curiam
asked whether the “offense require[d] forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose.” 135 S. W. 3d, at 9. The court of appeals wrote that Moore’s crime required “a level of planning and forethought.” Ex parte Moore II, 548 S. W. 3d, at 572, 603 (observing that Moore “w[ore] a wig, conceal[ed] the weapon, and fle[d]” after the crime).
Briseno asked whether the defendant could “respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral and written questions.” 135 S. W. 3d, at 8. The court of appeals found that Moore “responded rationally and coherently to questions.” Ex parte Moore II, 548 S. W. 3d, at 564.
And Briseno asked whether the defendant’s “conduct show[s] leadership or… that he is led around by others.” 135 S. W. 3d, at 8. The court of appeals wrote that Moore’s “refus[al] to mop up some spilled oatmeal” (and other such behavior) showed that he “influences others and stands up to authority.” Ex parte Moore II, 548 S. W. 3d, at 570–571.
Of course, clinicians also ask questions to which the court of appeals’ statements might be relevant. See AAIDD–11, at 44 (noting that how a person “follows rules” and “obeys laws” can bear on assessment of her social skills). But the similarity of language and content between Briseno’s factors and the court of appeals’ statements suggests that Briseno continues to “pervasively infec[t] the [the appeals courts’] analysis.” Moore, 581 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 18).
To be sure, the court of appeals opinion is not identical to the opinion we considered in Moore. There are sentences here and there suggesting other modes of analysis consistent with what we said. But there are also sentences here and there suggesting reliance upon what we earlier called “lay stereotypes of the intellectually disabled.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 15). Compare Ex parte Moore II, 548 S. W. 3d, at 570–571 (finding evidence that Moore “had a girlfriend” and a job as tending to show he lacks intellec-
