Opinion ID: 1262655
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Promise of Payment

Text: The trial court found as an aggravating circumstance against Robinson that Robinson procured the commission of the offense by payment, or promise of payment, of anything of pecuniary value. A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(4). During the aggravation-mitigation hearing, the state presented evidence of a post-arrest statement made by Washington to Major Ralph Ogden of the Yuma County Sheriff's Office. Washington said that Robinson planned the June 8, 1987 trip to the Hills' home, and Robinson told him that the Hill residence belonged to a cocaine trafficker. Robinson disclosed a plan to take off the cocaine dealer who lived at the house and to steal any cocaine and/or money present. Robinson said that if things get rough, shoot `em. Washington told the officer that Robinson did not announce this plan until Robinson, Washington, and Mathers arrived in Yuma. Washington's post-arrest statement was apparently considered by the trial court as evidence that Robinson had procured the slaying by promising Washington a pecuniary benefit. An aggravation-mitigation hearing regarding the death sentence involves the same safeguards as a trial. A.R.S. § 13-703(C). That provision states in part: [T]he admissibility of information relevant to any of the aggravating circumstances ... shall be governed by the rules governing the admission of evidence at criminal trials. These rules of evidence include the right of an accused to confront adverse witnesses as guaranteed by the sixth amendment. Also, as a matter of right, post-arrest statements by non-testifying co-defendants may not be considered against the accused. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). In Walton v. State, 481 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme Court vacated a defendant's death sentence and remanded for further proceedings because the primary evidence introduced against Walton during the penalty phase of his trial consisted of post-arrest statements of his co-defendants. The fact that in Arizona the penalty phase is tried to a judge rather than to a jury does not cause statements otherwise in violation of the sixth amendment to become admissible. We are therefore obligated to search the record in order to ascertain whether sufficient evidence exists apart from Washington's post-arrest statement to support the trial court's finding that Robinson procured the murder by the promise of anything of pecuniary value. Robinson provided the murder weapon and transported Washington to the home of his common-law wife's parents. There is no evidence that Washington knew the Hills or where they lived but for the guidance of Robinson. Once at the Hill home, Washington demanded drugs and/or money from the Hills. Even disregarding Washington's post-arrest statement implicating Robinson, the evidence supports the trial court's finding that Robinson procured the slaying through promises to Washington of pecuniary gain, that is, the presence in the Hill home of drugs and/or money.