Opinion ID: 2625939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause Prohibit Resentencing Under Arizona's Amended Capital Sentencing Procedure?

Text: ¶ 25 The defendants argue that the double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions [7] preclude resentencing under the new sentencing statutes. We hold that they do not. ¶ 26 Double jeopardy prevents the government from prosecuting an individual more than once for the same offense. Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). According to the Supreme Court: The underlying idea ... is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. Id. at 187-88, 78 S.Ct. at 223; see also Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101, ___, 123 S.Ct. 732, 745-46, 154 L.Ed.2d 588 (2003) (reaffirming principle that the underlying purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to prohibit repeated attempts by the state to convict, thereby exposing a defendant to embarrassment, expense, and the ordeal of another proceeding). ¶ 27 Double jeopardy principles generally do not apply to sentencing proceedings. United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 132, 101 S.Ct. 426, 435, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980). Capital sentencing proceedings, however, provide an exception to the general rule. The penalty phase of a capital trial resembles an ordinary trial proceeding in which the sentencing authority chooses between two alternatives together with standards to guide [its] decision, [and] the prosecution undert[akes] the burden of establishing facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 730, 118 S.Ct. 2246, 2251, 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (discussing Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 101 S.Ct. 1852, 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981)); see Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 2310, 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984) (holding double jeopardy applies to the penalty phase of capital trial because the penalty phase proceeding is like a trial). Therefore, we must determine whether resentencing the defendants under Arizona's new sentencing statutes violates the prohibition against double jeopardy.