Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/598us1r3_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 7

22 

CRUZ v. ARIZONA 

Opinion of the Court 

mons.1  That line of cases culminated in State v. Lynch, 238 
Ariz. 84, 357 P. 3d 119 (2015).  There, the Arizona Supreme 
Court  refused  to  apply  Simmons  on  the  ground  that  Lynch 
could  have  received  a  life  sentence  under  § 13–751(A)  and 
thus  been  eligible  for  “executive  clemency”  after  25  years. 
238 Ariz., at 103–104, 357 P. 3d, at 138–139. 

This  Court  summarily  reversed  in  Lynch  v.  Arizona,  578 
U. S.  613,  holding  that  Simmons  applies  with  full  force  in 
Arizona.  The  Court  noted  that  “Simmons  expressly  re-
jected  the  argument  that  the  possibility  of  clemency  dimin-
ishes a capital defendant's right to inform a jury of his parole 
ineligibility.”  578  U.  S.,  at  615.  The  Court  also  observed 
that  Simmons  foreclosed  the  State's  alternative  argument 
that  relied  on  the  potential  for  future  legislative  reforms  to 
Arizona's parole statute.  578 U. S., at 616. 

B 

In  2005,  Cruz  was  convicted  and  sentenced  to  death  for 
the  murder of  a  Tucson police  offcer.  Cruz's conviction  oc-
curred over a decade after the decision in Simmons, but be-
came fnal before the decision in Lynch. 

At  trial,  Cruz  repeatedly  sought  to  inform  the  jury  of  his 
parole  ineligibility.  Citing  Simmons,  Cruz  expressed  con-
cern that unless he had “the opportunity to present the miti-
gating factor that he will not be released from prison,” jurors 
would be left to “speculate” about Arizona's capital sentenc-
ing  scheme  and  whether  it  allows  for  parole.  App.  28–29. 
The  trial  court  “conclude[d]  that  Simmons  is  distinguish-
able” and did not act on Cruz's concern.  Id., at 41. 

Cruz  also  informed  the  trial  court  of  his  intent  to  call 
as  a  witness  the  chairman  of  the  Arizona  Board  of  Execu-

1 See,  e. g.,  State  v.  Benson,  232  Ariz.  452,  465,  307  P.  3d  19,  32  (2013); 
State v. Hardy, 230 Ariz. 281, 293, 283 P. 3d 12, 24 (2012); State v. Chappell, 
225 Ariz. 229, 240, 236 P. 3d 1176, 1187 (2010); State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 
1, 14–15, 234 P. 3d 569, 582–583 (2010); State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1, 18, 226 
P. 3d 370, 387 (2010). 

Page Proof Pending Publication