Opinion ID: 3066031
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sentencing Hearing and Imposition of Sentence

Text: The trial court held a sentencing hearing and imposed sentence in late November 1998. The court found that the state had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, three aggravating circumstances for the murders of Delahunt and Wear: the murders were committed in expectation of pecuniary gain, the murders were especially cruel and multiple homicides committed during the same offense. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(F)(5), (6), (8) (1998). The court found two aggravating circumstances applicable to Kagen’s murder: pecuniary gain and multiple homicides. See id. § 13-703(F)(5), (8). The court found that Poyson failed to prove any statutory mitigating factors. Poyson’s difficult childhood and mental health issues were not statutory mitigating factors under § 13703(G)(1) because they did not significantly impair Poyson’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to POYSON V . RYAN 13 conform his conduct to the requirements of law.3 The court explained: There has certainly been evidence that the defendant had gone through a turbulent life, perhaps had mental-health issues that would distinguish him from the typical person on the street. Listening to his description of how these murders were committed, based upon a description of somewhat a methodical carrying out of a plan, the Court sees absolutely nothing on the record, in this case, to suggest the applicability of this mitigating circumstance. Turning to nonstatutory mitigating factors, the court first explained the three-step analysis it used to evaluate each nonstatutory mitigating circumstance proffered by Poyson: “[1] to analyze whether the defense has shown this fact by a preponderance of evidence, and then if they have, [2] to determine whether I would assign that any weight as a mitigating factor, and of course, for any that . . . pass both of those two tests, [3] I have to weigh them all along with the other factors in the final [sentencing] determination in this case.” 3 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(G)(1) (1998) (“Mitigating circumstances [include] [t]he defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.”). 14 POYSON V . RYAN Mental Health Issues: The court rejected Poyson’s mental health issues as a nonstatutory mitigating factor at the second step in the analysis. The court found that Poyson had proven that he suffered from personality disorders, but gave them no weight because they were not causally related to the murders: [T]he defendant had some mental health and psychological issues. I think . . . the defense has established that there were certain . . . personality disorders that the defendant, in fact, may have been suffering from. The Court, however, does not find that they rise to the level of being a mitigating factor because I am unable to draw any connection whatsoever with such personality disorders and the commission of these offenses.4 Troubled Childhood: The court similarly rejected Poyson’s difficult childhood as a nonstatutory mitigating 4 T he court rejected evidence of Poyson’s low IQ for similar reasons. At the first step in the analysis, the court found that “there is certain evidence in this case that would support the proposition that the defendant’s mental capacity may be diminished, at least compared to the norm in the population, and that his I.Q. may be low, at least compared to the norm in the population.” The court, however, gave this circumstance no mitigating weight in light of planning and sophistication that went into the crimes – “certain prep[ar]atory steps that were taken – admittedly, not overly-sophisticated, but attempts were made to do certain things, to disable warning systems to enable these murders to be committed and to get away with the loot that was the purpose of the murders; specifically, the vehicle.” POYSON V . RYAN 15 factor. At step one, the court found that the “defense has shown that defendant suffered a dysfunctional childhood, that he was subjected to physical and sexual abuse, and that he was subjected to certain levels of mental abuse.” At step two, however, the court gave these circumstances no mitigating weight because they were not causally connected to the murders: “The Court finds absolutely nothing in this case to suggest that his latter conduct was a result of his childhood.”5 Substance Abuse: Finally, the court rejected Poyson’s history of substance abuse at both steps one and two in the analysis: Poyson failed to establish a significant history of drug or alcohol abuse and, even if he could do so, the court would have given the evidence no weight because he failed to establish a causal connection between the substance abuse and the crimes. The court said: The argument is made that the defendant was subjected to alcohol abuse and drug abuse. Other than very vague allegations that he has used alcohol in the past or has used drugs in the past, other than a fairly vague assertion that he was subject to some sort of effect of drugs and/or alcohol at the time, that these offenses were committed, I really find very little to support the allegation that the defendant has a significant alcohol and/or 5 The court also found that “the defense has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant lost a parent figure and was subjected to sexual abuse at a relatively young age.” The court rejected this factor at step two, however, because it was “not convinced that there is any connection between that abuse, that loss, and his subsequent criminal behavior.” 16 POYSON V . RYAN drug abuse, and again, going back to the methodical steps that were taken to murder three people to get a vehicle to get out of Golden Valley, it’s very difficult for me to conclude that the defendant’s ability to engage in goal-oriented behavior was, in any way, impaired at the time of the commission of these offenses. The court found only one nonstatutory mitigation factor – Poyson’s cooperation with law enforcement. The court concluded that this one mitigating factor was insufficiently substantial to call for leniency and imposed a sentence of death.