Opinion ID: 2630520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: before the district court

Text: ¶ 14 In Arguelles's first hearing before the district court on May 12, 1997, the court assistant was again present as standby counsel. [3] The trial court conducted another self-representation and guilty plea colloquy with Arguelles, again assessing that Arguelles believed he was of sound and discerning mind and was mentally capable of understanding the proceedings and the consequences of his choice to waive counsel. The judge also inquired into the circumstances of Arguelles's choice to represent himself and the previous disqualification of Arguelles's counsel. Arguelles gave a description of the procedural history leading up to the disqualification of the LDA. When asked if he was now requesting representation by the LDA and waiving the conflict, Arguelles answered, [W]ell, I have these attorneys now, and I am easier just to continue with these attorneys now as stand-by counsel. The judge reiterated, [Y]ou're comfortable with that procedure? Yes, responded Arguelles. Referring to Arguelles's decision to represent himself, the judge asked him, Is there anything in your mind that is causing you to feel for any reason that you are not being placed in a posture where you can properly present your case? No, responded Arguelles. So you believe that you can properly present your defense in this case; is that correct? asked the judge. I do, replied Arguelles. ¶ 15 After Arguelles entered his guilty plea, the court read aloud each of the four charges, asked Arguelles to confirm the accuracy of the charges, and confirmed that Arguelles understood the nature and elements of the charges, his rights, and the consequences of pleading guilty. Arguelles demonstrated that he understood the charges when he responded appropriately, corrected the content of the charges as to one of the victims, and asked for clarification when he was unsure how to answer. [4] Once again, the trial court asked Arguelles whether he believed he was mentally competent and whether he understood both the proceedings and the consequences of his pleas. Arguelles indicated that he was competent and that he understood the charges and the proceedings. The trial court found that Arguelles pled guilty to each count knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that he had waived the jury for the penalty portion of the trial fully knowing the consequences of his choice. ¶ 16 At no time during this hearing or during any pre-trial hearings did standby counsel raise concerns about Arguelles's competence. Additionally, when the court asked standby counsel whether he had any questions regarding Arguelles's decision to waive a jury for the penalty phase, standby counsel replied [b]oy, there are many questions I'd ask you to ask, but this is his decision and I respect it. So, no. Once again, the trial court found that Arguelles had knowingly made a voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel and the right to a jury, and standby counsel made no objection. ¶ 17 At the end of the hearing, the trial court explicitly asked standby counsel [D]o you have any concerns? Standby counsel asked to be informed of the evidence the State was planning to present and noted that he might need the court's assistance in gaining access to Arguelles after hours. He made no mention of concern over Arguelles's mental competence, Arguelles's ability to represent himself, or his ability to plead guilty. ¶ 18 One week prior to the penalty phase hearing, Arguelles, with standby counsel's help, filed a motion to prohibit photography during the penalty phase. Arguelles argued that taking his photograph in court would be very distracting and irritating and would infringe on his ability to represent himself. Arguelles indicated in an affidavit that he would refuse to appear in the courtroom if the news media [were] allowed to take [his] photograph during the upcoming proceedings. ¶ 19 This motion was argued by standby counsel and Arguelles on the first day of the penalty phase hearing. Arguelles reasserted that the photography was distracting and stated he did not want to spend time avoiding the camera when he should be paying attention to what's going on. Counsel for the media argued to have one discreet, quiet-shutter camera placed in the back, under the court's control. The judge denied Arguelles's motion but stated, [W]e'll see how it goes. The judge ordered Arguelles to stay in the courtroom after he threatened to leave. ¶ 20 Immediately after the motion to prohibit photography was denied, Brass, acting as standby counsel, argued a motion to exclude victim impact evidence. [5] After the argument, Brass told the court that Arguelles had missed at least 50 percent of what we each had to say because he's troubled by this photography that's taken place. The judge agreed that it was distracting, but only modestly distracting. On the second day of the hearing, while Arguelles was cross-examining a witness, Arguelles asked the cameraman if he [c]ould . . . knock that off, please. The judge then asked the cameraman to hold the camera. After Arguelles finished his cross-examination, the judge told the cameraman there was no further prohibition on the camera. ¶ 21 During the three-day penalty phase, the State presented evidence of aggravating factors, including evidence of Arguelles's prior crimes and the specific circumstances of the charged crimes. For mitigation, Arguelles called one witnessthe officer to whom he initially confessedand offered reports, tests, and notes of his medical and psychological history. Throughout the penalty phase, Arguelles represented himself with some assistance from standby counsel. ¶ 22 The State first presented evidence of Arguelles's prior crimes. In October 1977, when he was fifteen, Arguelles was convicted of car and gas theft. In October 1978, Arguelles committed sexual abuse of a ten-year-old girl, a third degree felony. He was convicted of this crime in March 1979. Arguelles raped a sixteen-year-old girl in February 1979. This case was dismissed because of Arguelles's conviction on the earlier sex abuse charge. [6] In May 1980, Arguelles was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old girl, a first degree felony, and was also convicted of attempted capital homicide of another fifteen-year-old girl, a first degree felony. While incarcerated, Arguelles escaped from custody for approximately forty-five minutes. He was not convicted of escape at the time of the crime. [7] Arguelles was released on parole on June 25, 1991. Arguelles returned to prison in August 1992, after being convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of two young children. ¶ 23 In the second phase of the aggravation case, the State presented evidence of the charged murders. In his 1996 confession, Arguelles stated that on February 21, 1992, he abducted forty-two-year-old Margo Bond from the school where she worked, drove her to the west desert in Tooele County, sexually assaulting her on the way, then removed her clothes, bound her, strangled her to death, and buried her body. ¶ 24 On March 19, 1992, Arguelles offered thirteen-year-old Stephanie Blundell a ride, drove her to Timpanogos Canyon, sexually assaulted her, strangled her to death, and then buried her. ¶ 25 On March 30, 1992, Arguelles offered fourteen-year-old Tuesday Roberts and sixteen-year-old Lisa Martinez a ride, then drove them to a nearby school. Arguelles handcuffed the girls together and attempted to sexually assault Lisa. When Lisa resisted, Arguelles stabbed her repeatedly with a wood chisel, killing her. [8] Arguelles then took Tuesday to a different location and sexually assaulted her. He took Tuesday back to the school field to pick up Lisa's body, drove to a pig farm, strangled Tuesday to death, and then buried the two bodies at the farm. Arguelles confessed that one reason he killed Tuesday was because he did not want there to be any witnesses to the initial crime. ¶ 26 The State called a family member of each of the four murder victims to testify about the murder and the impact it had on their family. ¶ 27 Warren Bond, husband of Margo Bond, testified that he last saw his wife on February 21, 1992, before she went to work at Kennedy Junior High School. Four months later, her body was found. Margo had two sons and one granddaughter. He described Margo as being high on life. She was the Ms. Utah Body Builder Champion and loved golfing, bike riding, and camping. Mr. Bond stated, not only did I lose my wife, but I lost my best friend .... I had lost everything. ¶ 28 Elaine Blundell, Stephanie Blundell's mother, testified that she last saw her daughter on March 19, 1992, before she left for school. Stephanie's body was found four years later. Stephanie had one sister and one brother, was bubbly and very out-going. When asked how the murder had impacted the family, Elaine replied that [i]t basically tore us apart. ¶ 29 Veronica Juarez, Lisa Martinez's sister, testified that she last saw her sister and her sister's friend, Tuesday Roberts, on March 30, 1992, before they left the house together. Lisa and Tuesday's bodies were found three and a half years later. Lisa was the oldest of four daughters. Veronica testified that Lisa wanted to try out to be a cheerleader, but she never got the chance to do that. When asked what effect the murder has had on her, Veronica stated that [s]he was like my best friend and now she's not there no more. ¶ 30 Shawn Roberts, Tuesday Roberts' brother, testified that Tuesday was the youngest of four. She was involved in dance, softball ... and liked drawing. Shawn testified that the murder changed everything.... It's really hit us hard. He stated, [i]t's like I've lost a limb. ¶ 31 In mitigation, Arguelles presented one witness, five documents containing medical and psychological information, and a handwritten sheet of mitigating factors for the judge to consider. Arguelles had indicated earlier that he would present very little, if any mitigation evidence. ¶ 32 At Arguelles's request, Brass examined Jenny Glover, a department of corrections investigator and peace officer. Arguelles initially spoke with Glover about the Roberts and Martinez murders before finally confessing to each of the four murders charged. He then showed investigators where the bodies of Martinez, Roberts, and Blundell were located. [9] Glover testified that it was her belief that had Arguelles not confessed, the Martinez and Roberts murders would not have been solved and that those bodies would never ever have been found. Glover also testified that Arguelles said he felt the only way to atone for the murders was through his execution. ¶ 33 Arguelles also presented a series of documents related to his medical and psychological background. In a 1980 police report, Arguelles's friend reported that Arguelles had a thirty-minute episode in which he thrashed on the friend's floor and yelled at her. A 1979 psychological evaluation stated that Arguelles had very little understanding of ... his sexual offenses ... and on some occasions can't remember what happened. A 1988 psychological test stated that there may be episodes in which this individual did not know what was being done, and later could not recall what had been done. The test also stated that Arguelles most likely had a personality disorder such as anti-social, schizotypal, borderline paranoid schizoid. Two medical tests from 1994 and 1995 stated that Arguelles had complained of scalp numbness and memory loss. ¶ 34 At the end of his mitigation case, Arguelles asked the judge to refer to the mitigating sheet that I handed into [sic] you. This three-page, hand-written document listed a series of blackouts, memory loss, disasociative [sic] states that the judge might consider when weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. When asked by the trial court about the offered mitigating evidence, Arguelles responded, It was indicated to me that by law it may well be remanded back to the court if I didn't offer the court some sort of mitigation. That's why the mitigation was offered. ¶ 35 After Arguelles had offered his mitigating evidence, the court asked Arguelles what his attitude was in relation to further psychiatric or psychological examination. Arguelles indicated that he would refuse to cooperate if the trial court ordered any mental examinations. ¶ 36 In the trial court's findings of aggravating and mitigating factors, the court found eleven aggravating factors and four mitigating factors. The trial court stated that [t]he testimony of the family members heard here as to their loss is both touching and enduring. The losses they feel daily are life altering to them.... To them the court expresses its compassion and concern. The trial court then found that the aggravating circumstances outweigh, if not eclipse, the mitigating. The evidence justifying the death penalty is overwhelming. The trial court ordered Arguelles to be executed.