| State v. Samuel Lopez
(Samuel Lopez II), 175 Ariz. 407, 857 P.2d 1261 (1993) PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was convicted
in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder and other offenses, and was sentenced
to death. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed, but the death sentenced was vacated
and remanded for resentencing. Defendant was resentenced to death. This is defendant's
automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. "Obviously, the victim endured great
physical and mental anguish over a relatively protracted period of time while she
struggled for her life." Her suffering was not only foreseeable, it was unavoidably
obvious to the defendant." 175 Ariz. at 411.
Physical Pain: Found. The victim was stabbed twenty-three times in the upper
chest and three times in the abdomen. "Her throat was cut. She was sexually assaulted
and had semen in both her vagina and anus. She had defensive wounds on her forearms. There
were bruises on her body. The apartment was knocked asunder, evidencing a terrific
struggle for life during which time the victim was obviously conscious." 175 Ariz. at
411.
Knew or Reason to Know that Victim Would Suffer: Found. "Her suffering was
not only foreseeable, it was unavoidably obvious to the defendant." 175 Ariz. at 411.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Found. "[T]he clear fact is that the multiple
stab wounds in the chest and the abdomen, along with the throat cutting, certainly qualify
as gratuitous violence." 175 Ariz. at 412. "Moreover, the knife wounds to the
face, the sexual assault, the binding of the victim's eyes, and the gagging of her mouth
were not directed toward killing the victim and clearly bespeak gratuitous violence."
175 Ariz. at 412.
Senselessness: Found. There was no reason to kill the victim since the sexual
assault could be accomplished without murder.
Helplessness: Found. "The victim was a 59-year-old, 124-pound woman . . .
[who] was gagged so she could not call for help." 175 Ariz. at 412. The victim was
blindfolded at some point, and although she struggled, "for all practical purposes
this uneven match was over after the first serious wounds were inflicted on the
victim." 175 Ariz. at 412.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that there were no mitigating circumstances
in this case sufficient to call for leniency. The Court found the defendant failed
to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as
mitigating circumstances:
Impairment [intoxication]
Model Prisoner [good behavior in jail]
JUDGMENT: Death sentence affirmed.
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz.
549, 858 P.2d 1152 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was
convicted in Superior Court (Coconino) of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and molestation
of a child under fifteen years of age. Defendant was sentenced to death. This is
defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - REVERSED
The defendant had previously been convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault.
After analyzing each statute, the Court determined that each of those crimes could be
committed without the use or threat of violence. Therefore, neither one could support the
(F)(2) finding.
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. The victim's clothes were removed without being
torn or cut and the victim was found naked with her hands tied. The Court found that this
indicated that her hands were tied after she was naked and that since her hands needed to
be bound, she must have been conscious. "There would be no need to bind an
unconscious victim. . . . Reasonable inferences from this evidence are that the victim was
alive, conscious, and stripped before she was bound and that she was conscious when
bound." The Court held that evidence supports a finding of consciousness and,
further, that this nine-year-old victim suffered physical and mental anguish before being
killed. "Obviously, the victim would have been terrified."
Physical Pain: Found. The Court found physical pain, but did not specify whether
it was the blows, the victim being tied, or some other fact. See mental anguish.
Knew or Reason to Know that Victim Would Suffer: Found. "Nor can it be
argued that the mental and physical pain inflicted was unforeseen or fortuitous." 175
Ariz. at 605.
Heinous or Depraved: Not addressed.
(F)(9) (Victim under Fifteen Years of Age) - UPHELD
The (F)(9) finding was upheld without discussion. The defendant was an adult and
the victim was nine years old at the time she was killed.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstance
existed, but was insufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Family Ties [love and support by and for family]
The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment [from Alcohol or
Drugs]
Impairment [intoxication]
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentence
affirmed.
State v. Landrigan, 176
Ariz. 1, 859 P.2d 111 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of theft, second-degree burglary and
first-degree felony-murder, and was sentenced to death for the murder. This is defendant's
automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - UPHELD
The (F)(2) finding upheld without extensive discussion. Landrigan did not contest
the (F)(2) finding on appeal. The Court noted that the (F)(2) finding was supported by a
prior Oklahoma conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, under Okla.
Stat. tit. 21, §§ 641, 642, 645 (1971). The state proved the existence of the conviction
by producing certified public records from Oklahoma, and the state's expert matched
Landrigan's fingerprints with those on the records.
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
Evidence supported a finding that pecuniary gain was the cause, not merely a
result, of the murder. Landrigan had admitted that around the time of the murder, he had
been getting money by robbing. Testimony established that the victim frequently tried to
pick up men by flashing a wad of money, usually after he got his paycheck, that on the day
he was killed he had picked up a man named "Jeff" and brought him home, and that
he had picked up his paycheck that day. Landrigan, whose first name is "Jeff,"
matched the description of "Jeff" given by the victim to a friend, and was found
wearing a shirt that belonged to the victim. The victim's apartment was ransacked and
neither his paycheck nor its proceeds were located, although nothing else seemed to be
missing. The killing did not appear to have been unexpected or accidental. Additionally,
the Court concluded that Landrigan's convictions for theft and burglary were supported by
sufficient evidence.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
Impairment [intoxication]
JUDGMENT: Convictions
and sentences affirmed.
State v. William
Herrera, Sr., 176 Ariz. 9, 859 P.2d 119 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of kidnapping and first-degree felony murder
and was sentenced to death for the murder. This is defendant's automatic, direct appeal to
the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Defendant did not actually kill the victim, but he did order his sons to do so.
The Court found that the victim's death was the result intended by defendant, and that his
participation in the murder was substantial and intentional. Assessment of aggravating
circumstances was still appropriate in his case, though the aggravators are based upon his
son's conduct. The Court held, however, that evidence of aggravating circumstances must
come from defendant's own trial or aggravation/mitigation hearing. The Court found no
reversible error, though, in the fact that the evidence of cruelty came from the son's
trial.
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. The victim was a police officer who was
questioning defendants when they attacked him. The victim was forced after a struggle to
lie on the ground helpless as his own gun was used to shoot him. The Court found that the
victim suffered mental anguish and "that defendant was actively engaged in causing
that pain and anguish." The Court found that the victim shielded himself from the gun
with his hands and "heard defendant command his son to `Shoot him.'"
The Court further found defendant's intent for the victim to be killed by his son was
"manifestly clear by [his] statements and manner at the time [the victim] was
killed." Further, defendant's participation in the murder was "substantial and
intentional."
Physical Pain: Found. The Court determined that defendant actively engaged in
inflicting physical pain on the victim. The victim was physically overpowered by defendant
and his sons, was forced to lie on the ground, received a painful gash in his forehead,
and was struck by defendant's knee.
Heinous or Depraved: Not addressed.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that there were no mitigating circumstances
in this case sufficient to call for leniency. The Court found the defendant failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating
circumstances:
(G)(3) Minor Participation
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
Comment: The reader may also want to see
the companion cases of co-defendants. State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d
131 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 951, 114 S. Ct. 398, 126 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1993);
State v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 850 P.2d 100 (1993).
State v. William
Herrera, Jr., 176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d 131 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was
convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery,
and kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder. This is defendant's
automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. Defendant threw the victims police radio at his
head causing a deep gash in the victim's forehead. Lying on the ground, the victim put his
hands over his face while defendant instructed his brother to shoot the officer. The
victim was in this situation for at least eighteen seconds and possible up to two or three
minutes, according to testimony, while begging for his life. The testimony was
corroborated by physical evidence of powder burns on the victim's hands, which appeared to
have been held in front of his face in a defensive posture.
Physical Pain: Found. The gash on the victim's head subjected the victim to
physical pain.
Heinous or Depraved: Not addressed.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstance
existed, but was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Age [20 years at time of crime]
Impairment [from Alcohol]
The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment [from Alcohol]
(G)(3) Minor Participation
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
Comment: The reader may also want to see
the companion cases of co-defendants. State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 9, 859 P.2d 119
(1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 966, 114 S. Ct. 446, 126 L. Ed. 379 (1993); State
v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 850 P.2d 100 (1993).
State v. Spencer, 176
Ariz. 36, 859 P.2d 146 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder and other offenses, and
was sentenced to death. This is the defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona
Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(1) (Prior Life or Death Felony) - UPHELD
Before his capital murder conviction, the defendant had been convicted of armed
robbery, a class 2 felony, with two prior convictions and while on probation. He had
received a life sentence for that conviction under A.R.S. § 13-604.02. Because that
statute had been enacted after § 13-751(F)(1), he argued it could not be used to support
(F)(1). The Arizona Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the legislature is
presumed to know the law when it passes a statute, and that it presumed § 13-604.02 would
apply to § 13-751. Moreover, the defendant did not dispute that his armed robbery
sentence was lawful.
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - UPHELD
The trial court found that the defendant was previously convicted of robbery and
armed robbery. The statutory definitions of those offenses necessarily involve the use or
threat of violence against another person. The armed robbery conviction can satisfy either
(F)(1) or (F)(2), so long as it is weighed only once. Since there were no mitigating
factors, no additional balancing was required.
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
The defendant made the victim withdraw all funds from her bank account, and sold
her car after the murder. He admitted his intent to steal a car. The Arizona Supreme Court
cited State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 823 P.2d 22 (1991), State v. LaGrand,
153 Ariz. 21, 734 P.2d 563 (1987), and State v. Bernard Smith, 146 Ariz. 491, 707
P.2d 289 (1985), for the proposition that pecuniary gain must be "a motive, cause or
impetus and not merely the result of the murder." The Court here found no reasonable
doubt that pecuniary gain was at least one of the motives for the murder and not merely an
afterthought.
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Not addressed. "Because we
find that the murder was heinous or depraved, we need not decide whether it was committed
in a cruel manner." 176 Ariz. at 43.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Mutilation: Found. "[A]fter he raped and stabbed the
victim he doused her with an accelerant and set her on fire. Spencer does not attempt to
argue that this was not mutilation. This alone supports the finding of
heinousness or depravity." 176 Ariz. at 44.
Senselessness: Found. Although the murder was carried out to aid defendant's
completion of the theft, it was unnecessary to kill the victim in order to accomplish the
theft of her car and money from her bank account. Defendant was in control of the victim
and her car for some time before the murder. "There was no reason to kill except to
fulfill his depraved plot." 176 Ariz. at 44.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that there were no mitigating circumstances
in this case sufficient to call for leniency. The Court found the following was not a
mitigating circumstance: Good Behavior at Trial
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Schurz, 176 Ariz.
46, 859 P.2d 156 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder and attempted aggravated
robbery. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder. This is defendant's automatic,
direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court granted review of the denial of
defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and consolidated it with the automatic
appeal.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Defendant did not challenge the finding of the aggravating circumstance of
"especially cruel, heinous or depraved." Therefore, the Court addressed this
finding only peripherally and did not separate the findings into the Gretzler
categories.
Cruel: Upheld. The Court stated that
"[t]he suffering both mental and physical of a person who remains conscious while
receiving third and fourth degree burns over almost 100% of his body more than adequately
demonstrates cruelty." 176 Ariz. at 56.
Mental Anguish: Found.
Physical Pain: Found.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld. The Court's
only mention of heinousness and depravity is as follows: "[t]he cold-blooded burning
to death of a person who is attempting to flee demonstrates the kind of `vile' mind-set
that we have labeled heinous or depraved." 176 Ariz. at 56.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed, but were insufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Difficult childhood/Family History
Impairment [personality disorder]
Impairment [intoxication and substance abuse]
Lack of Criminal History
Rehabilitation [but only that he completed GED and substance abuse treatment - reports
showed he had a violent personality extremely maladapted to living in society]
The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment
Sentencing Disparity
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Runningeagle,
176 Ariz. 59, 859 P.2d 169 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) on two counts of first-degree murder, two
counts of theft, one count of first-degree burglary, one count of second-degree burglary,
and one count of third-degree burglary. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murders.
This is defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
Runningeagle and his accomplices stopped at the Davis house to steal parts from a
car parked outside. They took two carburetors from the Davis car, along with other items
from the car and open garage. While engaged in this activity, they were confronted by an
elderly neighbor, Mr. Williams and his wife. After the couple retreated into their home,
Runningeagle and an accomplice broke through the couple's front door with a tire iron and
beat and stabbed the couple to death. When police searched the house, they found an empty
purse and found that Mrs. Williams' jewelry drawer was open and some jewelry was missing.
The Court rejected Runningeagle's claim that because he was engaged in burglarizing the Davis
home, his motivation for killing the Mr. and Mrs. Williams was not pecuniary gain, and
that the burglary of the Williams home was an afterthought. The Court found that
Runningeagle killed Mr. and Mrs. Williams in order to complete the Davis
burglary, and therefore, the killing was to further the goal of pecuniary gain. The Court
also found that Runningeagle killed Mr. and Mrs. Williams in order to steal from them.
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. Defendant taunted both of the victims with his
knife and pursued them into their home by breaking through the door with a tire iron. Mr.
Williams, one of the victims, had a knife wound through his forearm, demonstrating his
efforts to fend off the attack. "Mrs. Williams had a superficial knife wound on her
neck consistent with having a knife pressed to her throat. A neighbor heard Mrs. Williams
crying. Expert testimony established that the [victims] lived for three to four minutes
after being stabbed." 176 Ariz. at 65. The Court found that the couple suffered
horrible mental pain while watching each other suffer through the attack.
Physical Pain: Found. The victims both had knife wounds, fatal and nonfatal,
including the defensive wound on Mr. Williams' arm and the wound on Mrs. Williams' neck.
The Court held that the evidence supported a finding of physical pain. 176 Ariz. at 65.
Knew or Reason to Know that Victim Would Suffer: Found. Defendant argued
that because he did not intend for the victims to suffer that cruelty should not have been
found. The Court disagreed, explaining that he knew or should have known that his actions
would cause suffering. 176 Ariz. at 65.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Relishing: Found. Defendant and his co-perpetrator were laughing as they
returned to the car after killing the Williams. Defendant also bragged to his girlfriend
about having been in a "good fight." 176 Ariz. at 65.
Senselessness: Found. The Court simply affirmed without explaining this finding.
Helplessness: Found. The Court affirmed, but did not explain this finding.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found no mitigating circumstances in this case
that would call for leniency. The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment
Age [19 years old at time of crime]
Remorse
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Michael Apelt,
176 Ariz. 349, 861 P.2d 634 (1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was
convicted in Superior Court (Pinal) of premeditated first-degree murder and conspiracy to
commit first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. This is defendant's automatic,
direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Defendant's appellate review of the denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief has been consolidated with this appeal.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(4) (Procurement of Murder by Payment) - UPHELD
The Court found that the evidence clearly showed that the defendant procured his
brother Rudi's involvement in the murder by promising him a share of the life insurance
proceeds, thus satisfying the (F)(4) aggravating circumstance. Shortly before the murder,
the defendant brought the life insurance papers to the motel and told the others that they
would all have a lot of money if Cindy were killed. The Court stated that the most
reasonable inference was that Rudi agreed to assist the defendant with the murder because
of this promise of pecuniary gain.
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
The Court found that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant killed his wife to receive the $400,000 life insurance proceeds from a policy he
had taken out on her life. See State v. Rudi Apelt, 176 Ariz. 369, 861 P.2d 654
(1993).
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. "The evidence [of]...the presence of her
purse in the apartment and the presence of a towel and some nylon cord at the murder
scene, indicates that she was forcibly subdued by the man she thought was her loving
husband." 176 Ariz. at 367. The victim was conscious when initially attacked which
was demonstrated by scrapes on her knees and a defensive wound on one of her hands.
Physical Pain: Found. Evidence established that the victim "was conscious as
she was stabbed once in the chest, four times in the back, and as her throat was
slashed." 176 Ariz. at 367. In upholding the death sentence, the Court held that the
victim "suffered great physical and emotional pain." Id.
Heinous or Depraved: Not addressed.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court agreed with the trial court that the defendant
had not proven any mitigating circumstances sufficient to call for leniency. The Court
notes the following mitigating circumstances proffered by the defendant, but it is unclear
whether the Court found they existed at all or only that they were insufficient to call
for leniency.
Age
Remorse
Cooperation [ with presentence report writer]
Model Prisoner [changed character and newfound religious beliefs]
Lack of Criminal History
Military Service
Good Behavior at Trial
Germany does not have death penalty
Sentencing Disparity [this was not mitigating because it was explained disparity]
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
Back to Top |