Opinion ID: 2534434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Burden on defendant under death penalty statute

Text: ¶ 76 Anderson argues that Arizona's death penalty statute creates an unconstitutional presumption of death because it requires a jury to impose a death sentence if it unanimously finds one or more aggravating circumstances and then determines that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. See A.R.S. § 13-703(E), (H). Anderson also contends that requiring a defendant to prove mitigating circumstances violates the Eighth Amendment. ¶ 77 This Court has already squarely rejected Anderson's presumption argument. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. at 146 ¶ 82, 14 P.3d at 1016 (citing State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 411, 844 P.2d 566, 578 (1992)). We have also held that it is constitutional to place the burden of proving mitigation on the defendant, State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 447, 586 P.2d 1253, 1259 (1978), a position endorsed by the United States Supreme Court, Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 649-51, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ring II, 536 U.S. at 608-09, 122 S.Ct. 2428. While Anderson argues that Ring II changed the law in this regard, we have also rejected that very contention. State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, 15 ¶ 42, 66 P.3d 50, 58 (2003).