| State v. Ross, 180 Ariz.
598, 886 P.2d 1354 (1994) PROCEDURAL
POSTURE: Defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Pima) of premeditated
first-degree murder and armed robbery and sentenced to death for first-degree murder. This
is defendant's automatic direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
The defendant's admitted objective was to steal money and identification. It is
not relevant whether he intended to kill before the robbery. A person furthers his
pecuniary gain motive when he kills to facilitate escape and to ensure keeping the stolen
items. Here, the defendant killed to steal credit cards and bankcards. The defendant lured
the victim real estate agent to a vacant store under the pretext of an interest in leasing
the property. Once inside, the defendant demanded the victim's wallet and during the
ensuing struggle, shot the victim in the head. The defendant dragged the victim's body
behind the counter and again shot him in the head. After stealing the victim's wallet, the
defendant immediately began using the victim's bank and credit cards. He withdrew money
from a bank, obtained a temporary driver's license, and bought a car with the victim's
identification. The defendant had the victim's wallet in his possession when he was
arrested by the police.
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - REVERSED
Cruel: Not addressed.
Heinous or Depraved: Reversed. Senselessness
and helplessness alone "will ordinarily not be sufficient to prove heinousness or
depravity." 180 Ariz. at 607.
Senselessness: Found. Defendant argued that the victim fought back during the
robbery so he had to shoot him to complete the robbery. The Court disagreed. Defendant had
the victim's wallet before the second shot was fired, so there was no need to shoot again.
Defendant could have taken victim's wallet without killing him.
Helplessness: Found. The victim was shot twice. He was rendered helpless by the
first shot and hence, the second shot was delivered when the victim was helpless. 180
Ariz. at 606.
Witness Elimination: Not found. The Court articulated three fact patterns where
witness elimination may be found, pursuant to previously existing case law. First,
"where the murder victim is a witness to some other crime, and is killed to prevent
that person from testifying about the other crime"; second, when "a statement by
the defendant that witness elimination is a motive for the murder" is made; third,
"where extraordinary circumstances of the crime show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
witness elimination is a motive. This will only occur in the most extreme cases." 180
Ariz. at 606. The Court held that the facts of this case did not fit into any of the three
categories.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed, but were insufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Lack of Criminal History
Family Ties
The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
Difficult Childhood/Family History; Model
Prisoner; and Cooperation with police
JUDGMENT: Convictions and death
sentence affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the (F)(6) finding and then
reweighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before affirming the sentence.
State v. Hinchey (Hinchey
II), 181 Ariz. 307, 890 P.2d 602 (1995)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted after his second trial in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder
and attempted first-degree murder and he was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the
Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the death sentence and remanded
for resentencing. At resentencing, the defendant was again sentenced to death. This is his
automatic, direct appeal from that resentencing.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
There is no discussion of aggravating circumstances in this
opinion.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that there were no mitigating circumstances
sufficiently substantial to call for leniency in this case. More specifically, the Court
found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence
of the following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment [personality
disorder]
Stress
Jury foreman's affidavit stating death penalty not deserved
Adjustment to incarceration
Originally given life sentence pursuant to plea agreement
JUDGMENT: Death sentence affirmed.
State v. Gonzales, 181
Ariz. 502, 892 P.2d 838 (1995)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted after his second trial in Superior Court (Maricopa) of felony murder,
aggravated assault, theft, armed robbery, and two counts of burglary. The first trial
ended in a hung jury. He was sentenced to death on the murder conviction, and prison
sentences on the noncapital convictions. This is his automatic appeal to the Arizona
Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(3) (Grave Risk of Death) - UPHELD
The wife was confined a 10-foot by 10-foot courtyard with the defendant as he
stabbed her husband to death. She attempted to rescue her husband by jumping on the
defendant's back as he was stabbing. According to the Court, "[o]ne who murders
knowing that others are present can expect that someone may attempt to interfere,
particularly when the person is the victims spouse."
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
The defense argued that the murder was accidental and unexpected in that the
robbery was already completed when he was confronted by the victim. The Court disagreed
with this analysis. The Court stated that the (F)(5) factor is found where a motivation
for the murder was the expectation of pecuniary gain, and that where a defendant kills to
facilitate escape and to keep stolen items, he is furthering his pecuniary gain motive.
Here, the victims interrupted the defendant during his burglary of their home. The
defendant was there to steal and this intent "tainted all of his other conduct."
This murder was not accidental given the sheer number of stab wounds. The defendant's
primary motivation was to steal, and the murder was directly related to that goal.
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:
Felony Murder conviction
Good Character
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Barreras, 181
Ariz. 516, 892 P.2d 852 (1995)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant
pleaded no contest in Superior Court (Maricopa) to first-degree murder and sexual assault,
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) - REVERSED
Cruel: Not addressed.
Heinous or Depraved: Reversed. After
reversing the witness elimination finding, only senselessness and helplessness remained.
The Court has repeatedly held that "in most cases the senselessness and helplessness
factors alone will not support a finding of heinousness or depravity." 181 Ariz. at
523. In the present case, the Court found senselessness and helplessness were not
sufficient to find heinousness and depravity.
Senselessness: Found. The Court found senselessness was established beyond a
reasonable doubt in that defendant easily could have completed the sexual assault without
killing the victim. 181 Ariz. at 522.
Helplessness: Found. The Court held that the victim's "diminished mental
capacity and functional age clearly rendered her helpless at defendant's hands." 181
Ariz. at 522. The victim was nineteen years of age, because of tuberous sclerosis, she had
the mental age of a three- to four-year-old child. Further, the Court compared the
victim's size to defendant's, but still found that the victim's diminished mental capacity
rendered her helpless.
Witness Elimination: Not found. Citing the three witness elimination factors
articulated in State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 886 P.2d 1354 (1994), the Court held
that, in this case, the record did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that
witness elimination motivated defendant. The victim had not witnessed any unrelated crime,
defendant had not said anything to demonstrate that witness elimination was his motive,
and no sufficient other circumstances existed to make an extreme case. 181 Ariz. at 523.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
Because the Court reversed the (F)(6) finding and reduced
the sentence to life, it was unnecessary to weigh the "significant mitigating
evidence involving the defendant's organic brain damage and low I.Q." The Court did
not discuss the specific evidence that was considered "significant."
JUDGMENT: Convictions for sexual
assault and murder affirmed. Sentence for sexual assault affirmed. Sentence of death
reduced to life imprisonment without possibility of release for twenty-five years to be
served consecutively to all other sentences.
State v. Willoughby,
181 Ariz. 530, 892 P.2d 1319 (1995)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first degree premeditated murder, conspiracy
to commit murder, fraudulent schemes and artifices, armed robbery, obstructing criminal
investigation and filing fraudulent insurance claim, and he was sentenced to death for the
murder. This is defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
Evidence showed that defendant did not merely receive insurance proceeds from an
existing policy after his wife's death, but rather, he killed his wife for the purpose of
making a financial gain. Prior to killing his wife, Willoughby pressed for a buyout
agreement between his wife and her mother so that his wife's share of their business would
be liquidated upon her death and distributed under her will. An integral part of the
agreement was the purchase of additional life insurance on his wife's life. After the
murder, Willoughby received proceeds from one policy and sought proceeds from another.
Evidence also established that Willoughby said that his wife would have taken him "to
the cleaners" if he had divorced her rather than killing her.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstance
existed, but was insufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Good Character.
The Court noted that the proof in this case of a great many
past good deeds, even if prompted by impure psychological motives, had considerable
mitigating value and was entitled to substantial weight.
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz.
290, 896 P.2d 830 (1995)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Pima) of kidnapping, burglary, and first-degree felony
murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder. This is the defendant's automatic,
direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. The victim was abducted from her bed by a
stranger, carried several blocks, placed in a dirty car, disrobed and stabbed to death.
The Court concluded that the victim was conscious for a substantial duration between the
beginning of the crimes and her death. This conclusion was supported by the victim's
fingerprints on the left rear window and door handle of the taxicab, blood stains which
indicated the victim was upright after being stabbed, and the absence of any other injury
that would have impaired the victim's consciousness prior to being stabbed.
"Obviously, the three-year-old victim was terrified beyond imagination." 182
Ariz. at 311.
Physical Pain: Found. The Court was persuaded by medical evidence that a person
with similar injuries to the victim would have suffered "excruciating pain"
while she died over a fifteen to thirty minute period. The victim may not have been
conscious for the entire fifteen to thirty minutes, but the Court held that with these
circumstances, a brief period of consciousness would be enough to establish cruelty. 182
Ariz. at 311. Knew or Reason to Know that Victim Would Suffer: Found. "To
support a finding of cruelty, only post wound suffering must be foreseeable. A
defendant's subjective intent to cause suffering and the singularity of the wound are
irrelevant altogether." 182 Ariz. at 311-12 (citation omitted). The Court found the
victim's post wound suffering to be foreseeable because it was not the type of wound that
kills or disables instantly like a gunshot to the head. "It makes no difference that
the trial court did not expressly refer to foreseeability in its special verdict."
Heinous or Depraved: Not addressed. The
Court refused to address heinousness or depravity because it found the F(6) factor
established by cruelty.
(F)(9) (Victim under Fifteen Years of Age) - UPHELD
The defendant was an adult and the victim was three years of age at the time she
was abducted from her parents' home. She was stabbed and her body abandoned. On appeal the
defendant attacked the constitutionality of the death penalty statute, in particular the
(F)(9) factor, because its finding resulted in an automatic death sentence. The Court
rejected the argument without much discussion and noted that the statute is constitutional
because it requires the trial court to consider the mitigating circumstances and weigh
them against the aggravating factors. The defendant also contended the victim's age was
counted twice, once to find the (F)(9) factor and again to find the (F)(6) factor. The
Court found no basis for that argument in the record.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstance
existed, but was insufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Age [19 years old at time of crime] [given little
weight because crime not impulsive]
The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
Impairment
Difficult Childhood/Family History
Repeated past institutionalization
Felony Murder [instruction and conviction]
(G)(4) Death not Reasonably Foreseeable
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Stokley, 182
Ariz. 505, 898 P.2d 454 (1995)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Cochise) of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts
of kidnapping, and one count of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen. He
was sentenced to death for the murder. This is the defendant's automatic, direct appeal to
the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. A medical expert testified that strangulation,
the cause of death, usually takes twelve to fifteen minutes with at least a few minutes of
consciousness, and death is not instantaneous. This is partially true in this case where
defendant constantly repositioned his hands during the manual strangulation. 182 Ariz. at
517. There was evidence that the victims struggled during this time. Thus, the victims
were conscious during at least part of the attack.
Physical Pain: Found. The victims had been stabbed in or near the eye, had many
bruises and abrasions, and one victim had been stepped on with defendant's shoe, before
death or shortly thereafter. The Court found that at least some of these injuries occurred
before death and that this constituted cruelty. Further, evidence of hemorrhaging in the
vaginal area was present for both victims, indicating sexual activity before death. One
victim endured a fractured cranium and laceration of the skull. The Court found that both
victims had struggled and were conscious when at least some of the injuries were
inflicted, which is sufficient to establish cruelty. 182 Ariz. at 517.
Knew or Reason to Know that Victim Would Suffer: Found. The Court stated that
defendant knew or should have known the victims would suffer, but did not provide any
factual analysis.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Found. The Court affirmed the findings that stabbing the
eyes of the victims, as well as stomping on their bodies, could not have been thought to
cause death and, therefore, constituted gratuitous violence and mutilation. 182
Ariz. at 518.
Mutilation: Found. See Gratuitous Violence.
Senselessness: Found. The Court stated that the killing of "a helpless
child" is senseless.
Helplessness: Found. The Court found that the victims were defenseless against
the attacks when they were "driven to a remote rural area in the middle of the night,
sexually assaulted, stabbed, stomped, stripped, strangled, and thrown down a mine
shaft." 182 Ariz. at 518.
Witness Elimination: Found. A dialogue between defendant and a detective revealed
that defendant's motive to kill the victims after the sexual assault was due to his fear
they would tell. This fulfills the second Ross witness elimination category.
(F)(8) (Multiple Homicides) - UPHELD
The (F)(8) finding was upheld without discussion. The defendant did not contest
the finding on appeal. Two thirteen-year old girls were sexually assaulted, strangled,
stabbed in the eye, and dumped down a mineshaft.
(F)(9) (Victim under Fifteen Years of Age) - UPHELD
The (F)(9) finding was upheld without discussion. The defendant was an adult at
the time the crimes were committed, and the two victims were both under the age of
fifteen.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed, but were insufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Mental disorders
Lack of Criminal History
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 [mental and
alcohol/drugs]
Intoxication
History of substance abuse
(G)(3) Minor Participation
(G)(4) Death not Reasonably Foreseeable
Cooperation [with police]
Sentencing Disparity
Potential for Rehabilitation/Lack of Future Dangerousness
Difficult Childhood/Family History
Good Character
Model Prisoner [pretrial and presentence]
Felony Murder /Lack of Intent to Kill
Remorse
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Aryon
Williams, 183 Ariz. 368, 904 P.2d 437 (1995)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Pinal) of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree
murder, and armed robbery, 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 in part,
REVERSED in part
The trial court used the defendant's convictions of armed robbery and attempted
murder, in connection with the current case, as (F)(2) factors. The Court affirmed the use
of the armed robbery conviction because armed robbery, by its terms, is a felony that
involves the use or threat of violence on another person. The Court concluded that the
attempted murder conviction cannot support an (F)(2) finding because, under the terms of
the statute, the crime of attempted first degree murder does not necessarily involve the
use or threat of violence on another person. The Court stated, however, that the attempted
murder charge is irrelevant because the armed robbery conviction supports the
(F)(2)
finding. The Court also cited several cases which state that convictions entered prior
to a sentencing hearing may be considered regardless of the order in which the underlying
crimes occurred or the order in which the convictions were entered. (F)(2) was
properly applied for the armed robbery conviction.
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Not addressed.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Found. "Unquestionably, this murder involved
gratuitous violence. Rita's body was broken, crushed, torn, scraped, shot, dragged,
beaten, and bruised. In addition to being shot three times, Rita suffered a savage beating
with a hard object, resulting in blunt force injuries covering virtually her entire upper
body. Her internal injuries, consisting of pierced and torn organs, were numerous and
severe. One of the gunshots completely fractured Rita's right femur, her ribs were
fractured in at least thirty-one places and she suffered a broken nose, a fractured breast
bone, fractured collar bones, and massive fractures of the pelvic bone. She was run over
by an automobile at least twice. The number and nature of Rita's injuries belie any claim
that defendant did not inflict violence in excess of that necessary to kill."
Helplessness: Found. The Court found that after the victim was shot and beaten,
she was helpless unable to defend herself against further attack.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed, but were insufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Family Ties
Lack of Criminal History
Good Character
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
(G)(2) Duress; Age [23 years old at time of murder]
Victim's Actions
Recommendation for leniency from victim's sister [not related to the defendant, his
character, or the circumstances of the murder]
Race
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
Back to Top |