Opinion ID: 750665
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: District Court's Upholding of Death Penalty

Text: 49 The LaGrands argue that the death penalty should not have been upheld by the district court. They point out that the Supreme Court has said that the death penalty can be upheld in only the most egregious cases, citing Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 427, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), and that the death penalty is reserved for truly exceptional cases, citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 606, 858 P.2d 1152, 1209 (1993). They argue that this case does not come within the truly exceptional category. 50 The LaGrands in effect ask us to review the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that the imposition of the death penalty in their case was not disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. See State v. Walter LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 37, 734 P.2d at 579; State v. Karl LaGrand, 152 Ariz. at 488-90, 733 P.2d at 1072-73. However, once the Arizona Supreme Court undertook its proportionality review in good faith and found that [the LaGrands'] sentence was proportional to the sentences imposed in similar cases, [t]he Constitution does not require [the federal habeas court] to look behind that conclusion. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 779, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 3101, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990) (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 655-56, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3058, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990)). There is no indication that the Arizona Supreme Court's proportionality review was conducted in bad faith. The LaGrands' proportionality claim therefore fails. 51 The LaGrands also contend that the state courts and the federal district court improperly assumed the existence of the aggravating factor of cruel, heinous or depraved, rather than finding its existence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the state courts did indeed premise their finding of cruel, heinous or depraved upon specific evidence of Hartsock's physical and mental suffering, the LaGrands' infliction of gratuitous violence upon and mutilation of Hartsock, and Hartsock's position of helplessness. See State v. Walter LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 36-37, 734 P.2d at 578-79. The state trial court found that this aggravating circumstance had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 34, 734 P.2d at 576. Accordingly, this claim also fails.