ARIZONA CAPITAL SENTENCING GUIDE CASE SUMMARIES

State v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Pima) of six counts of first degree murder, one count of first degree attempted murder, three counts of armed robbery, and two counts of first degree burglary. He was sentenced to death for each of the murders. This is his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(F)(1)(Prior Life or Death Felony) – UPHELD
The Court’s opinion refers to its analysis of the factor in the appeal of co-defendant Robert Jones. See State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290, 4 P.2d 345 (2000). The defendant did not challenge this finding on appeal.

(F)(5)(Pecuniary Gain) – UPHELD
The Court’s opinion refers to its analysis of the factor in the appeal of co-defendant Robert Jones. See State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290, 4 P.2d 345 (2000). The defendant did not challenge this finding on appeal.

(F)(8)(Multiple Homicides) – HARMLESS ERROR
The Court’s opinion refers to its analysis of the factor in the appeal of co-defendant Robert Jones. See State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290, 4 P.2d 345 (2000). The defendant did not challenge this finding on appeal.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

The defendant did not challenge on appeal any of the trial court’s mitigation findings.

The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances had been proven, but were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:

Employment history
Caring parent and family relationship

The Court found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances, or assigned them no weight if proven:

Difficult childhood and family background
Mental health issues
Artistic talent
Defendant was a follower
Successful adjustment to prison
Residual doubt
No prior convictions for serious offenses

JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences affirmed.

State v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267, 25 P.3d 1139 (2001)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, burglary and theft. He was sentenced to death for the murder. This is his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) – UPHELD
The reason for the victim’s murder was to obtain the approximately $500,000 in cash in the armored car.

(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) – REVERSED

Cruel: Not addressed

Heinous or Depraved: Reversed
Relishing: Not found. Uncorroborated testimony from an accomplice was that the defendant said in an "offhand" manner, "you guys are forgetting something … you’re forgetting to congratulate me on my shot." The Court said the comments showed a calculated plan to kill, the defendant’s satisfaction over the success of his plan and extreme callousness or lack of remorse after the murder, but that they did not support a finding that the defendant actually relished the act of murdering the victim.

Senselessness: Found. Though any murder is senseless in its brutality and finality, the evidence did not support the State’s argument that the defendant could have seized the armored van without killing the victim. The defendant and his accomplices may have believed, from the way the victim was sitting in the van, that they could not have gained access to it or subdued the victim without a "potentially protracted and boisterous struggle." But the Court noted "that the entire inquiry is pointless" because a finding of senselessness alone cannot support a heinous/depraved finding.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

The Court found that the following mitigating circumstance existed, but was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:

Minimal criminal history

The Court noted that the defendant had no prior felony convictions, but did have prior misdemeanor convictions for carrying a concealed weapon and for impersonating a public servant.

The Court found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances, or assigned them no mitigating weight if proven:

Previous work as a police officer, correctional officer, bounty hunter, and confidential informant
(G)(3) – Minor participation
Residual doubt

JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for certiorari. Ring v. Arizona, 122 S.Ct. 865 (U.S. Jan 11, 2002)(No. 01-488).

State v. Harrod, 200 Ariz. 309, 26 P.3d 492 (2001), 200 Ariz. 309, 26 P.3d 492 (2001)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of premeditated murder and felony murder. He was sentenced to death. This is his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) – UPHELD
The defendant’s ex-wife testified that the defendant told her he killed the victim after being promised $100,000 from a beneficiary who wanted access to his inheritance. The state also introduced evidence of wire transfers and checks from the beneficiary to the defendant totaling about $35,000. The Court relied on this evidence to conclude the killing "was a murder for hire, not a robbery gone bad."

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

The Court agreed with the trial court that the defendant failed to prove the following mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence:

(G)(3) Minor Participation
(G)(5) Age (defendant age 34)
Absence of Biological Father (no causal link to crime)
Disproportionate Sentence

The Court found the following mitigating circumstances existed, but were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:

Lack of Criminal Record
Good Behavior in Prison
Supportive Family

The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that it had no lingering doubt about the defendant’s guilt. The Court concluded it "thus need not reach the question of whether residual doubt is a mitigating factor which the defendant must prove."

Despite concluding residual doubt was not present in the case, two justices wrote special concurrences to discuss the concept. Justice Jones wrote that consideration of residual doubt at sentencing does not fall within the permissible scope of A.R.S. §13-751(G), because that provision refers to "any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense."

In a separate special concurrence, Justice Feldman, with Justice Zlaket concurring, wrote that "it is time to make clear to the bench and bar that residual doubt is a mitigating factor." Justice Feldman reasoned that residual doubt should be considered, especially given the recent evidence showing wrongful convictions occur in capital cases. He also disagreed with Justice Jones, finding that the statute does not limit mitigation to evidence of the defendant’s character and circumstances of the offense, but only provides examples for the command to consider any factors relevant to sentencing. He concluded, "Residual doubt, properly defined, should be considered a substantial mitigating circumstance, and the court should say so."

JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences affirmed.

State v. Sansing, 200 Ariz. 347, 26 P.3d 1118 (2001), 200 Ariz. 347, 26 P.3d 1118 (2001)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant pleaded guilty in Superior Court (Maricopa) to first degree murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and sexual assault. He was sentenced to death. This is his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) – REVERSED
After calling a church to request delivery of a food box for his family, the defendant told his wife he wanted to rob the church worker so he could buy more crack cocaine. When the delivery arrived, the defendant threw the victim down onto the floor. With his wife’s help, he bound her wrists and knocked her unconscious with a club. Leaving her on the floor, the defendant took her keys and moved her truck from the front of the house to a nearby parking lot. The victim regained consciousness before the defendant returned. When he returned, the defendant raped and stabbed the worker. She died several minutes later. The defendant left the room and looked out of a window in a different room to ensure no one had seen his conduct. He then removed the worker’s jewelry, which he later arranged to trade for cocaine.

Relying on State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 35, 734 P.2d 563, 577 (1987), the state claimed the defendant’s overall motive was to rob the victim and that his desire infected all of his conduct. The Court disagreed, finding the state’s interpretation of LaGrand too broad. A murder committed during a robbery or burglary is not per se motivated by pecuniary gain. Proof of a "robbery gone bad," or one that occurs close in time to a murder but that constitutes a separate event, is insufficient to sustain a (F)(5) finding. The requisite inquiry usually involves determining whether a motive for the murder was the facilitate the taking of or ability to keep items of pecuniary value. Also important is whether the murder was committed to facilitate escape or to hinder detection by police.

The facts proved neither that the killing was motivated by the expectation of pecuniary gain nor to facilitate escape and hinder detection. After the murder, the defendant left the victim in his house for 4 or 5 hours, then placed her in a visible location in his backyard. The next morning, he went to his sister’s home and confessed to her.

(F)(6) (Especially Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) – UPHELD

Cruel: Upheld

Mental Anguish: Found. The victim was conscious during at least part of, if not the majority of the attack, including when the defendant and his wife bound her with extension cords. All four of the defendant’s children reported that the victim said, "Lord, please help me." The defendant stipulated in his plea agreement that the victim was conscious when he returned after briefly leaving the house. The defendant’s wife testified she heard the victim and the defendant talking during the sexual assault and that the victim had asked the children several times during the attack to call the police. This established the victim was aware of and had sufficient time to contemplate her fate.

Heinous or depraved: Having found sufficient proof of cruelty, the Court found it unnecessary to address whether the facts established heinousness or depravity.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

The Court found the following mitigating factors existed, but were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:

Difficult childhood and family background (insufficient causal link to offenses)
Non-statutory impaired capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct or to conform conduct to legal requirements [abuse of crack cocaine] (insufficient causal link to offenses)

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial judge violated the victim’s rights to be heard by failing to consider as mitigation the victim’s daughter’s request for mercy. The evidence is not relevant to the defendant’s character or circumstances of the crime. And a sentencing judge is forbidden from considering any recommendation made by the victim regarding the sentence.

JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences affirmed.