Opinion ID: 2621170
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of Character of the Victim

Text: ¶ 9 The defendant asserts that the judge improperly based his sentencing decision on Ms. Calabrese's good character. In his special verdict, the judge referred to the victim as a Good Samaritan and as a person who took great joy in helping people in need. The judge's concluding remarks, after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors, described Ms. Calabrese as a person who stood out like a shining light, as a true Samaritan and who kept her faith in God to the end. The defendant argues that the judge imposed the death sentence because he viewed the victim as a person above the norm of other murder victims. That approach, he argues, violates A.R.S. section 13-703, which does not define the character of the victim as an aggravating factor, and discriminates on the basis of the victim's status. A.R.S. § 13-703.A H (2001). ¶ 10 We agree with the State that the judge's comments, taken in context, do not show that the trial judge relied upon the victim's good character in imposing the sentence. Taken in context, the comments merely state the judge's summary of the aggravating factors, particularly the senselessness of the crime and the helplessness of the victim. The fact that the victim was delivering food when attacked is related to the senselessness of the crime; the judge's comments related to resorting to prayer for comfort describe the helplessness of the victim after she had been beaten and bound. ¶ 11 The defendant relies on Gerlaugh v. Lewis, 898 F.Supp. 1388 (D.Ariz.1995), aff'd 129 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.1997), to support his argument that imposing a death sentence based on the social or economic background of the victim or defendant supports a claim of discrimination. In Gerlaugh, the habeas petitioner alleged that Arizona's death sentence is discriminately applied because the death penalty is more likely to be imposed if the victim is white and the defendant is a young male from a lower socio-economic background. Gerlaugh, 898 F.Supp. at 1416. The court stated that [t]o prevail on an equal protection claim, Petitioner must prove `that the decision-makers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose.' Id. (citing McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987)). The defendant points to no facts that support a finding that the trial judge acted with discriminatory purpose, and nothing in the special verdict suggests that the victim's social or economic background affected the judge's decision.