Document: 476 U.S. 147 106 S.Ct. 1749 90 L.Ed.2d 123 Patrick Gene POLAND, Petitioner,v.ARIZONA. Michael Kent POLAND v. ARIZONA. Nos. 85-5023, 85-5024. Argued Feb. 24, 1986. Decided May 5, Syllabus Petitioners robbed a bank van of $281,000 in cash and killed the guards by dumping them into lake sacks weighted with rocks. were convicted first-degree murder an Arizona state court. At separate hearing, while finding that statutory aggravating circumstance offense was committed for "pecuniary gain" not present because it applied only to contract killings, trial judge sentenced petitioners death upon "an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner" present. The Supreme Court, reversing remanding retrial on other grounds, held evidence insufficient support "especially heinous" circumstance, but erred limited if again might find this On remand, death, both circumstances Court affirmed, rejecting petitioners' argument Double Jeopardy Clause barred reimposition penalty. court found still sufficient circumstance. Held: Reimposing penalty did violate Clause. Pp. 152-157. (a) When conviction is reversed appeal, nullified " 'the slate wiped clean,' so defendant again, he may constitutionally be subjected whatever punishment lawful. Bullington Missouri, 451 430, 442, 101 1852, 1860, 68 270. This rationale is, however, inapplicable where jury agrees appellate decides prosecution "has proved its case." Id., at 443, S.Ct., 1860. Therefore, relevant inquiry these cases whether sentencing reviewing has "decided case" hence "acquitted" petitioners. supra; Rumsey, 467 203, 104 2305, 81 164. 152-154. (b) judge's rejection "acquittal" double jeopardy purposes, foreclose consideration Moreover, legally justify imposition penalty, there no Clause, therefore, second hearing which "clean slate" rule applied. 154-157. 144 Ariz. 388, 698 P.2d 183, 412, 207 (1985), affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion BURGER, C.J., POWELL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. ---. W.K. Wilhelmsen, petitioner each case. Gerald R. Grant, Phoenix, Ariz., respondent Justice WHITE Court. 1 question presented bars further capital proceeding when, appeal from sentence finds factor relied, does 2 * In 1977 Poland, disguised as police officers, stopped Purolator making deliveries various banks northern Arizona. After removing some van, took two dumped water Autopsies indicated most probable cause guards' drowning, although one have died heart attack. It possible determine drugged, struggle. 3 disbelieved alibi defense murder. Pursuant former Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-454(A) (Supp.1973), then sat sentencer proceeding. prosecution, relying trial, argued present: (1) had "committed receipt, expectation [something] pecuniary value," 13-454(E)(5) (Supp.1973); (2) manner," Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13-454(E)(6) (Supp.1973). made following respect circumstance: 4 "The 13-454E(3) [sic] presumes legislative intent cover killing. If presumption inaccurate, shows defendants received something value, amount $281,000.00. 5 "This, then, would circumstance." App. 15-16. 6 [or] depraved" present, stating murders "shockingly evil, insensate, marked debasement." 16. Finding outweighed mitigating evidence, death. 14. 7 They also jury's verdict tainted jury-room discussion admitted trial. agreed tainted, necessitating reversal retrial. State 132 269, 283-285, 645 784, 798-800 (1982). next relied first 285, P.2d, 800. Finally, stated "mistook law when 'committed anything value.' Ibid. explained situations involving see Clark, 126 428, 616 888 (1980), added "[u]pon retrial, are degree murder, existence 286, 801. 8 presenting additional factors petitioner's alleged third Poland's case: previous "a felony . use threat violence another person," 13-454(E)(2) (Supp.1973).1 all 9 they their Their theory Court's decision failed amounted Cf. 270 (1981); 164 (1984). A majority rejected argument, stating: 10 "Our holding Poland I simply could based solely [the 'especially depraved'] it. tantamount 'acquittal.' (Patrick), 404, 199 (1985). Accord, (Michael), 11 "prior violence" Poland. supra, 404-406, 199-201; accord, supra. independently weighing circumstances, concluded appropriate We granted certiorari consider reimposing penalties violated 474 816, 60, 88 49 hold not. II 12 life imprisonment protected against event obtains his retried reconvicted. recognized usual 13 "the original been clean.' lawful, subject limitation receive credit time served." U.S., 1860 (quoting North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 721, 89 2072, 2078, 23 L.Ed. 656 (1969)). 14 However, prior decisions created exception rule: "[T]he 'clean slate' whenever Bullington, 1860.2 Although usually "impossible conclude less than maximum 'constitute[s] effect government prove case,' ibid. Burks United States, 437 1, 15, 98 2141, 2149, 57 (1978)), "enacting procedure resembles issue guilt innocence, explicitly requires 'proved id., 444, 1861 (emphasis original).3 Accordingly, after should treated under 15 Recently, applies scheme supra.4 exactly same way cases, construing "murder hire" situations. Unlike case, Rumsey entered imprisonment. "[t]he principle [Rumsey's] case invoked Bullington: acquittal merits sole decisionmaker final charge." 211, 2310. 16 Under before us "decid[ed] III 17 point during either "failed deserved Plainly, acquit, imposed While Indeed, clearly such failure remarking mistook value,' circumstance," 18 argue, "evidence [insufficient] sentencer." Brief Petitioners' implicit first, second, rendered final, relating effectively removed appeal.5 19 reject fundamental premise namely, sentencer's particular always constitutes purposes. indicates proper appropriate.6 prepared extend view set minitrials Such approach push analogy past breaking point. 20 Aggravating offenses, "standards guide [the] choice" between alternative verdicts 438, 1858. Thus, Arizona's scheme, any itself "convict" (i.e., require penalty), "acquit" preclude penalty). 21 true must imposed, finding, albeit erroneous, barring 22 attaches significance acquittal. To permit acquittal, however mistaken been, unacceptably high risk Government, vastly superior resources, wear down 'even though innocent guilty.' States Scott, 82, 91, 2187, 2194, 65 (1978) Green 355 184, 188, 78 221, 223, (1957)). concern protecting finality acquittals implicated i.e., "convicted." There shield litigation; litigation hope has. argue matter based, court, sustains claim, ignore record supporting erroneously rejected. odd unacceptable result requiring enter even "proved Our do rule, certainly give "complain prejudice." Burks, 16, 2149. hold, Furthermore, 24 judgment 25 Affirmed. 26 whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 27 difference (1984), seven Members interpreted bar appeal: errors law, Rumsey's one. According majority, makes 28 robbery; him none provided defendant's One those circumstances—murder gain—the belief hire. gain include course robbery. aside remanded resentencing. time, given sentence, supported gain. writ certiorari, death-sentencing equivalent purposes doctrine (1981). initial constituted central proceeding: offense. traditional principles, thereafter precluded, predicated interpretation law. 29 Petitioners, Like gain, believing impose sentence. Instead, depraved." Based joint reviewed sentences establish depraved," victims suffered, requires. 61. Before remanding, opportunity, sua sponte, note hire, therefore available basis once more concluding gain.* upheld ground 30 much fact that, unlike never Yet fails recognize teaching (1978). we conviction, legal conclusion verdict, 2150. "To otherwise," concluded, "would create purely arbitrary distinction position others who enjoy benefit correct District Court." 11, 2147. That precisely creates today. "convictions," insufficiency must, accorded trial—the As all-important "acquittal merits," error so, too, sentences. 31 analogy, drawn sentencing, perfect, imperfections perhaps can explain majority's mischaracterization cases. charged containing certain specified elements; acquitted offense, trier having elements proceeding, quite different. Arizona, example, proved. treat "offense," acquitted, taken different approach. said "on merits" "central [is] offense." "offense" receives "conviction" appropriateness factor. Ante, 153, n. 3. 32 offenses offered 33 believes since permissible remand factfinding factors. But overlooks what our context—a determination trials conducted seriatim. reaching Any prohibited. See 211-212, 2310-2311. countenance offer chance better base conviction. Nor here. dissent. October 1981, unrelated robbery dangerous weapon lesser included second-degree greater charge 'was forced run gantlet refused convict him.' 190, 225, Also, overturned grounds convict, forbids 'Since necessarily accord absolute acquittal—no how erroneous decision—it difficult conceive society interest retrying review, decided properly returned 442-443, 1859-1860 2150, (1978)). "case" referred prosecution's guilty, innocent. emphasized required make choice "two verdicts," 1858, statement inconsistent seen rendering series mini-verdicts 209-210, 2309-2310 (1984) ("The sentencer—the Arizona—is choose options: without possibility parole years"). similarities Missouri systems follows: shares characteristics resemble years. guided detailed standards defining circumstances; particular, unless least found, whereas sufficiently substantial call leniency. findings involves submission presentation argument. rules govern admission beyond reasonable doubt. [T]hese indistinguishable Missouri." (citations omitted). clarity, discern plausible contention appeal. suggestion intended acquit negated language untenable court's "[o]ur I, 199. seem attach importance cross-appeal regarding cross-appeal, cannot say precluded considering 3, With events subsequent

Category: 0