Opinion ID: 1249344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Kidnapping as a Predicate Offense

Text: Defendant claims that the court erred in instructing the jury that kidnapping was one of the predicate offenses for felony murder. Defendant contends the felony murder doctrine is inapplicable when the felony is an offense necessarily included in the charge of homicide. See State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228, 235, 403 P.2d 540, 545 (1965). Whatever the merits of that argument and the present viability of Essman, we find no error in the present case. First, defendant made no objection when the instructions were discussed and settled. The error, if any, was therefore waived. Second, the facts of this case do not fit defendant's argument. Unlike the problem presented by assault ( see Essman, 98 Ariz. at 235, 403 P.2d at 545), it is possible to commit murder without kidnapping. Nor is this a case in which the record plainly establishes that the kidnapping and murder were conceptually identical, occurring as part of the same act. Instead, the kidnapping occurred when the victim was beaten on her bed and dragged down to the floor. The murder occurred later, when she was strangled on the floor. The facts do not merge as assault and homicide can coalesce. State's brief at 61. See State v. Bernal, 148 Ariz. 149, 150, 713 P.2d 811, 812 (1985). Under the facts of this case we find no error.
A Hash instruction conveys the idea [t]hat no person should be convicted upon suspicion or mere probability or from the fact that he may have had an opportunity to commit the crime. Hash v. State, 48 Ariz. 43, 58, 59 P.2d 305, 311 (1936). The trial court in this case instructed the jury on the need for the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and further instructed that [t]he term reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason. This does not mean an imaginary or possible doubt.... It is the law that no verdict of guilty can stand on mere suspicion, probabilities or suppositions, for these alone do not warrant a conviction. Defendant asserts that the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions were incomplete and that he was entitled to more under Hash. As long as the basic concept is covered, all of the Hash language need not be given. See State v. Cookus, 115 Ariz. 99, 104, 563 P.2d 898, 903 (1977). Here, the Hash concept was adequately communicated to the jury. J. Felony Murder Instructions Defendant contends the state failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a charge of burglary and, therefore, burglary may not serve as a predicate felony for felony murder. As we have previously stated, the evidence was adequate to support a burglary instruction. 7. Separate Verdict Forms Defendant argues that we should overrule prior case law and hold that a first degree murder verdict is constitutionally deficient unless there is a unanimous jury finding on a single theory of first degree murder. We have previously rejected this argument in State v. Lopez, 163 Ariz. 108, 111-12, 786 P.2d 959, 962-63 (1990), as has the United States Supreme Court in Schad v. Arizona, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504, 115 L.Ed.2d 555, 568 (1991). We again reject it. 8. Death Qualification of Jury In this case the trial court death-qualified the prospective jurors. Ultimately, 2 jurors were excused after it was established that their attitudes on the death penalty would likely impinge on their ability to sit fairly on the issue of guilt. Although defendant raised no objections in the trial court, he now argues that the law in Arizona should be changed so as to preclude death-qualification of jurors in capital cases. Absent fundamental error, the issue has been waived and there is, in any event, no error, fundamental or otherwise. State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 584, 832 P.2d 593, 641 (1992); State v. Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. 441, 449, 702 P.2d 670, 678, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975, 106 S.Ct. 339, 88 L.Ed.2d 324 (1985). 9. The Death Penalty A. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty Statute Defendant first argues that Arizona's death penalty statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, is unconstitutional because it: (1) provides for sentencing by a judge rather than by a jury; (2) places the burden of proof on defendant to prove mitigating circumstances; and (3) presumes the death penalty to be the appropriate sentence if one or more statutory aggravating circumstances is proved. This court has recently rejected these arguments. See State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 497-98, 826 P.2d 783, 784-85, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 206, 121 L.Ed.2d 147 (1992); see also Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 647-652, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3054-56, 111 L.Ed.2d 511, 524-27 (1990), aff'g State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 769 P.2d 1017 (1989). Defendant's argument that the aggravating circumstance of cruel, heinous and depraved is unconstitutional was rejected by the Supreme Court in Walton, 497 U.S. at 655, 110 S.Ct. at 3058, 111 L.Ed.2d at 529. Defendant's argument that the statute is arbitrarily applied because it fails to provide sufficient guidance to trial courts was rejected in State v. Correll, 148 Ariz. 468, 484, 715 P.2d 721, 737 (1986). Defendant's argument that the death penalty statute is discriminatory in application was rejected in State v. Blazak, 131 Ariz. 598, 602, 643 P.2d 694, 698, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 184, 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982). Defendant's argument that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment was rejected by this court in Blazak, 131 Ariz. at 601, 643 P.2d at 697, and by the United States Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2931, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, 882 (1976). Defendant's argument that the statute does not adequately restrict a prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty was rejected by the Supreme Court in Gregg, 428 U.S. at 199, 96 S.Ct. at 2937, 49 L.Ed.2d at 889 (pre-sentencing decisions by actors in the criminal justice system that may remove an accused from consideration for the death penalty are not unconstitutional); see also State v. Harding, 137 Ariz. 278, 292, 670 P.2d 383, 397 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1013, 104 S.Ct. 1017, 79 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984). Defendant's further arguments that the death penalty is imposed arbitrarily and irrationally in Arizona because of prosecutorial discretion and was imposed arbitrarily in this case are merely restatements of arguments addressed above. Defendant also argues that the trial court should have conducted a proportionality review. We have held that trial courts should not conduct such a review. State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 171, 823 P.2d 22, 38 (1991) (citing State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 196, 560 P.2d 41, 51 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915, 97 S.Ct. 2988, 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977)). B. The Death Penalty as Applied to Defendant 1. A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6), Especially Heinous, Cruel or Depraved Defendant first argues that the murder was not cruel because the medical evidence shows a probability that the victim lost consciousness before her death. Cruelty involves the pain and suffering of the victim, including mental distress suffered prior to death. State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 51, 659 P.2d 1, 10, cert. denied, 461 U.S. 971, 103 S.Ct. 2444, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983). The medical examiner who performed the autopsy testified that the victim had defensive wounds on her arms and hands, was beaten so severely that she suffered a cranial hemorrhage and broken nose, and was strangled with a phone cord so fiercely that it fractured her thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple). Although the medical examiner did not testify directly regarding the victim's degree of consciousness, the presence of defensive wounds on the victim and scratches on the defendant's chest indicate that the victim was conscious through some considerable portion of her agony. Our review of the evidence leads us to agree with the trial court's finding of cruelty. Defendant also challenges the trial court's findings that the crime was heinous and depraved. In determining whether a crime is heinous or depraved we focus on the defendant's mental state and attitude as evidenced by his words and actions. State v. Jimenez, 165 Ariz. 444, 455, 799 P.2d 785, 796 (1990). We look at five factors: (1) did defendant relish the murder; (2) did he needlessly mutilate the victim; (3) did he commit gratuitous violence beyond that necessary to kill; (4) whether the victim was helpless; and (5) whether the crime was senseless. Id. The victim was a fragile, partially blind 83-year-old woman who weighed less than 90 pounds. She was totally helpless and at the complete mercy of her younger and stronger assailants. She was brutally beaten and then strangled with a force that not only killed her but crushed her Adam's apple and caused her to hemorrhage about the neck. The trial court made detailed findings which are included in the Appendix to this opinion. See Appendix at 420-421, 844 P.2d at 587-588. We agree with those findings, while also noting that any one of the three elements (cruelty, heinousness, depravity) is sufficient to constitute an aggravating circumstance under A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6). We find no error. 2. Mitigating Factors Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the mitigating circumstances were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. In addition to the specific factors listed in A.R.S. § 13-703(G), the sentencing court must consider any aspect of the defendant's character or record and any circumstance of the offense relevant to determining whether a sentence less than death might be appropriate. State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 162, 677 P.2d 920, 935 (1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 2670, 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984). It is within the discretion of the trial court in the first instance, however, to determine how much weight is given to the proffered mitigating circumstances. State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551, 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990). The burden is on the defendant to prove the existence of mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Defendant asserts that the following factors were present and should result in a sentence of life imprisonment: (1) defendant was possibly convicted only on a felony murder theory; (2) defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired; (3) defendant was a relatively minor participant in the crime; (4) the victim's death was not reasonably foreseeable; and (5) defendant was young  22 at the time of the offense and 24 when sentenced to death. On appeal we must independently review the record to determine the absence or existence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances ... State v. Gillies (Gillies I), 135 Ariz. 500, 511, 662 P.2d 1007, 1018 (1983). We discuss each of the potentially mitigating factors separately.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to find its felony murder instruction to be a controlling mitigating circumstance. The trial court did consider this factor and, in that connection, made the following findings: Considering the possibility of other mitigating factors, Court finds the following mitigating factors: ..... Number 3, the felony-murder instruction that was given to the jury; Number 4, the question as to whether the Defendant did the actual strangulation. The Court finds as to Mitigating Factors 3 and 4 the following additional findings: The Defendant Salazar was a major participant in the felony committed, and that his involvement led to either the actual participation in the strangulation or the other violence perpetrated on the victim, or indicated reckless indifference to human life by the Defendant's actions, when in his presence the victim was being murdered. In this connection, however, the Court notes the fingerprints of Defendant Salazar in what appeared to be blood and the fresh scratches observed shortly after the incident on the Defendant's chest. Further, the Court notes his disposing of his shoes shortly after he left the house. This is contrasted to his story wherein he indicated in the trial that he left prior to any violence being perpetrated on the victim.