Opinion ID: 1195082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenges to Aggravating Circumstances

Text: At the time of this homicide, the (F)(2) aggravating circumstance required prior conviction of a felony in the United States involving the use or threat of violence on another person. A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2)(1989), amended by A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2) (West Supp.1996). The trial court concluded that (F)(2) was established here because of defendant's previous convictions for sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, all of which arose out of a 1984 incident involving his wife. Defendant challenges this determination. To qualify for this aggravator, the earlier felony must have been one that, by statutory definition, involved violence or the threat of violence. See State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 511, 662 P.2d 1007, 1018 (1983). Moreover, only those crimes in which force was employed or threatened with the intent to injure or abuse were considered violent under the former (F)(2). See State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 549, 804 P.2d 72, 82 (1990); State v. McKinney, 185 Ariz. 567, 582, 917 P.2d 1214, 1229 (1996). Sexual assault and kidnapping can be perpetrated by deception as well as by force. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1406, -1401, -1304, -1301; State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 604, 858 P.2d 1152, 1207 (1993); State v. Richmond, 180 Ariz. 573, 578-79, 886 P.2d 1329, 1334-35 (1994). Recognizing this, the state conceded in its sentencing memorandum that these offenses would not support the (F)(2) finding. Defendant's aggravated assault conviction was pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2), which requires an assault as defined in A.R.S. § 13-1203, plus the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. There are three ways, however, to commit assault under § 13-1203: (1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; (2) Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or (3) Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult, or provoke such person. A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(emphasis added). If an assault is committed recklessly pursuant to § 13-1203(A)(1), the former (F)(2) factor cannot be established because the required mental state is lacking. See State v. Walden, 183 Ariz. 595, 617, 905 P.2d 974, 996 (1995); see also State v. Rogovich, 188 Ariz. 38, 44 & n. 3, 932 P.2d 794, 800 & n. 3 (1997); State v. McKinney, 185 Ariz. at 583, 917 P.2d at 1230. Here, the state failed to prove the subsection of 13-1203(A) upon which defendant's prior conviction was based. After the verdict, defense counsel waived a jury trial regarding prior convictions and stipulated to defendant's identity. The prosecution then offered a certified copy of the sentencing minute entry from the earlier case, which stated only that defendant had been found guilty of aggravated assault, a dangerous, but nonrepetitive class three felony, without enumerating a specific subsection of 13-1203. The presentence report from that case also failed to designate any subpart of the assault statute. Before defendant's resentencing, the state submitted a memorandum with copies of the earlier indictments attached. Again, those documents did not indicate any specific subsection of 13-1203. Nevertheless, the trial court found a prior felony involving the use or threat of violence. Apparently concerned that the (F)(2) factor might be overturned on appeal, the state filed a Request to Take Judicial Notice, asserting that in order for this Court to intelligently resolve the dispute, it must have proof before it of the materials demonstrating the precise nature of the prior convictions, but those materials are not currently part of the Record on Appeal in this case. We are thus asked to notice various documents, including portions of jury instructions allegedly given in the prior matter. See Walden, 183 Ariz. at 617, 905 P.2d at 996. The instructions state that the crime of aggravated assault requires proof of the following: 1. That the Defendant intentionally put another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical injury; and 2. That the Defendant used a deadly weapon such as a firearm. Therefore, they would seem to indicate that defendant's prior conviction was based on § 13-1203(A)(2). As mentioned above, however, these instructions were not introduced at defendant's initial sentencing, nor at his resentencing. Arizona cases do not provide a clear standard for determining when an appellate court may take judicial notice of matters that were never presented to the trial judge. See Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., 145 Ariz. 374, 377 n. 3, 701 P.2d 1182, 1185 n. 3 (1985) (holding judicial notice of federal court memorandum decision improper under Rule 201, Ariz. R.Evid.); In re Estate of Henry, 6 Ariz.App. 183, 188, 430 P.2d 937, 942 (1967) (refusing to take judicial notice of legal proceedings transacted in another court); cf. State ex rel. Corbin v. Tocco, 173 Ariz. 587, 590 n. 1, 845 P.2d 513, 516 n. 1 (App.1992) (court of appeals may take notice of records in the same case that were previously submitted to it and were properly before the trial court). But see State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110, 506 P.2d 240, 241 (1973); Morris K. Udall et al., Arizona Practice, Law of Evidence § 152, at 331 (3d ed. 1991) (Supreme Court will take judicial notice of its own records and decisions and those of superior courts.). Because our court does not act as a fact-finder, we generally do not consider materials that are outside the record on appeal. See Schaefer v. Murphey, 131 Ariz. 295, 299, 640 P.2d 857, 861 (1982); GM Dev. Corp. v. Community Am. Mortgage Corp., 165 Ariz. 1, 4, 795 P.2d 827, 830 (App.1990); Benitez v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 15 Ariz.App. 54, 55, 485 P.2d 1171, 1172 (1971) (refusing items filed on the day of oral argument). Were we inclined to consider the late-presented documents in this case, we would first have to satisfy ourselves as to their authenticity, since we have been provided only photocopies of pages purportedly taken from various proceedings. See Ariz.R.Evid. 902; State v. Flowers, 9 Ariz.App. 440, 442-43, 453 P.2d 536, 538-39 (1969) (trial court must examine file of extradition papers before taking judicial notice of them). This court, however, is ill-equipped to resolve disputes over authenticity. Thus, the customary way to prove a prior offense is by introducing appropriate documentary evidence in the trial court. See State v. Marlow, 163 Ariz. 65, 70, 786 P.2d 395, 400 (1989). We see no reason to depart from this procedure, especially where life or death might literally hang in the balance. Regardless of the extent to which judicial notice may be appropriate in other contexts, therefore, we are not persuaded that it should be used at the appellate level to establish the existence of aggravating factors in a capital case. We hold that the (F)(2) finding is unsupported. The state has alternatively urged us to apply the current version of § 13-703(F)(2), amended prior to defendant's resentencing to encompass specifically enumerated serious offenses. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(F)(2), (H). We believe the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions prohibit this. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 25. The change in the statutory provision was substantive and could plainly serve to disadvantage a defendant. Offenses that did not qualify as an aggravating circumstance under the former use or threat of violence standard are now listed as serious felonies. See State v. Correll, 148 Ariz. 468, 481, 715 P.2d 721, 735 (1986) (citations omitted) (reaching similar result for new (F)(8) factor); A.R.S. § 13-703(H)(2); Richmond, 180 Ariz. at 579, 886 P.2d at 1335 (kidnapping); State v. Henry, 176 Ariz. 569, 586, 863 P.2d 861, 878 (1993) (manslaughter); Bible, 175 Ariz. at 604, 858 P.2d at 1207 (sexual assault).
Defendant complains that the judge's finding under § 13-703(F)(6) is virtually incoherent because he did not separately discuss cruelty, heinousness, and depravity. He did, however, list at least eleven specific factual findings supporting this aggravating factor, all of which are sufficiently clear for our review. See State v. Knapp, 114 Ariz. 531, 542-43, 562 P.2d 704, 715-16 (1977). Moreover, [t]he especially heinous, cruel or depraved circumstance is phrased in the disjunctive, so if any one of the three factors is found, the circumstance is satisfied. State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 37, 906 P.2d 542, 570 (1995).
A murder is especially cruel when the perpetrator inflicts mental anguish or physical abuse before the victim's death. See State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 586, 769 P.2d 1017, 1032 (1989). Mental anguish can result when the victim experiences significant uncertainty about his or her ultimate fate. See Murray, 184 Ariz. at 37, 906 P.2d at 570. If the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the victim was conscious during the infliction of violence, the court cannot find that the killing was especially cruel. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 311, 896 P.2d 830, 851 (1995). Defendant maintains that the victim here did not have time to suffer during the killing, that there were no significant injuries unrelated to the strangulation itself, and that he could not reasonably foresee the victim's suffering prior to her death, having intended only to render her temporarily unconscious. On the day of the murder, defendant met Charla Regan for lunch on the University of Arizona campus. He was allegedly distraught about recent events in his life and needed a temporary place to stay. Out of friendship, Charla helped him find a motel and was willing to discuss his problems. They arrived at the room shortly before 1:00 p.m. The primary source of information for the events that transpired during the rest of the afternoon is defendant's statement to police. According to him, they talked about the pending assault charges involving his wife, and his plan to flee to California. At some point, he took a gun from his bag and told Charla he wanted to have sex with her. She refused, and when he could not change her mind, he removed her clothes and forced himself on her. Afterwards, defendant claims Charla fell asleep on the bed. Later, when she was briefly awake, he mentioned the possibility of tying her up or giving her sleeping pills to facilitate his escape. After contemplating his options, defendant abruptly hit Charla on the jaw with the butt of his gun, breaking her tooth. He allegedly did this to render her temporarily unconscious while he made his escape. However, she began screaming, at which point he became frightened and strangled her. This last act occurred between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. At trial, the medical examiner testified that a strangling victim would probably remain conscious for a minute or two after the choking began. This court has held that a period of suffering from eighteen seconds to two or three minutes can be enough to warrant application of the cruelty aggravator. See State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 21, 34, 859 P.2d 131, 144 (1993). Proper analysis requires us to examine the totality of circumstances surrounding the murder and not just the final act that killed the victim. See State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 393, 814 P.2d 333, 350 (1991). Although we are unwilling to say that all stranglings are per se cruel, or that all killings involving a sexual assault automatically qualify under (F)(6), we are persuaded that the cruelty finding was appropriate under the present facts. The events of this tragic afternoon were sufficiently connected to be considered one transaction. The length of time Charla was held in the motel room, the presence of a gun, the sexual assault, the discussion about tying her up or drugging her, the blow to her head, the strangling, and her inevitable uncertainty about her ultimate fate all support the court's finding that this murder was especially cruel.
The trial judge's statements imply that the murder also satisfied the remaining elements of § 13-703(F)(6). The terms heinous and depraved focus on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense. See State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 178, 800 P.2d 1260, 1286 (1990). An especially heinous murder is hatefully or shockingly evil, while a depraved one is marked by debasement, corruption, perversion or deterioration. Id. In State v. Gretzler, this court listed the factors to be considered in determining whether a murder was especially heinous or depraved: (1) relishing; (2) gratuitous violence; (3) mutilation; (4) senselessness; and (5) helplessness. 135 Ariz. 42, 51-52, 659 P.2d 1, 10-11 (1983). Witness elimination may also be of significance under some circumstances. See State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 606-07, 886 P.2d 1354, 1362-63 (1994). The trial judge apparently found that defendant relished the murder. He stated at sentencing, [D]uring that strangulation and prior to death, according to the pathologist, hundreds of small hemorrhages appeared in the victim's eyes and on her face as blood vessels burst.... With both hands on her neck and the victim face up you ... must have watched those hemorrhages appear. Defendant contends, however, that he could not have seen this because the victim was lying on her stomach, the lights in the motel room were off, and it was nearly dark outside. Police found Charla lying on her back, but defendant claims that he turned her over after he strangled her. The medical examiner testified to the extent and cause of the hemorrhages, but never addressed when they might have appeared or the victim's position at that time. The tooth chip was found in the bed sheets, perhaps lending support to defendant's contention that Charla was lying face down when he strangled her. With nothing more in the record, we cannot say that defendant ever saw, much less relished, the hemorrhages as he strangled the victim. According to the state, the court's finding that the murder was a selfish act designed to demonstrate the defendant's power and domination over her and simultaneously degrade her shows that defendant had a depraved mind. It cites State v. Martinez-Villareal, where the perpetrator bragged that he had killed two people because of his pure balls, that he was very macho. 145 Ariz. 441, 444, 451, 702 P.2d 670, 673, 680 (1985). The horrific form of ego gratification exhibited in that case, however, stands in contrast to the behavior of this defendant, who turned himself in to police shortly after the crime and, as far as the record shows, never boasted in any way about the murder. Thus, we do not find relishing. The trial court also stated that defendant inflicted unnecessary and gratuitous violence upon the victim, but this finding is similarly unsupported by the evidence. The medical examiner admitted that the majority of injuries in the neck and facial area were associated with the strangulation, and the others were not inconsistent with this type of death. Apart from the victim's broken tooth and lacerated tongue, there were no signs of violence beyond the strangling. We do not believe a single blow that chips a tooth qualifies as gratuitous violence. See, e.g., State v. Scott, 177 Ariz. 131, 143, 865 P.2d 792, 804 (1993) (one or two unnecessary gunshot wounds, either of which may have been fatal, do not establish gratuitous violence). The tongue lacerations were apparently caused by defendant stuffing a sock in the victim's throat. He claims this occurred when he heard her make a sound after the strangulation. In any event, our cases have required more definitive proof of additional, severe brutality to establish gratuitous violence. See, e.g., State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 280-81, 921 P.2d 655, 683-84 (1996)(bludgeoning continued after victims were dead with skulls shattered from repeated blows with knife); State v. Walden, 183 Ariz. 595, 619, 905 P.2d 974, 998 (1995) (bruises on victim's legs and arms, scraping or cutting injuries to neck, chest, and breast, head wound, strangulation, and deep slashes to throat demonstrated defendant's attempt to inflict violence beyond that required to kill), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1444, 134 L.Ed.2d 564 (1996); State v. Villafuerte, 142 Ariz. 323, 331, 690 P.2d 42, 50 (1984) (victim was perversely gagged to a much greater extent than necessary, with ball of cloth placed in nasal pharynx); cf. Richmond, 180 Ariz. at 579, 886 P.2d at 1335 (gratuitous violence not established where defendant twice drove over unconscious victim with car). The trial judge did not find mutilation. He stated, however, that the killing was totally needless and unnecessary (senselessness) and that the sole unequivocal reason for defendant's actions was to prevent the victim from informing the police and from being a witness against you (witness elimination). At the time of resentencing, State v. Ross, which limits a finding of witness elimination to three categories, had not yet been decided. 180 Ariz. at 606, 886 P.2d at 1362. Under Ross, this element may be considered only where: 1) the victim was a witness to some other crime and is killed to prevent him or her from testifying about it; 2) the perpetrator states that witness elimination was a motive for the murder; or 3) extraordinary circumstances, present in only the most extreme cases, demonstrate such a motive. Id. Here, the evidence does not support any of these categories beyond a reasonable doubt. Senselessness and helplessness, without more, are ordinarily insufficient to prove heinousness or depravity. See, e.g., State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 281, 921 P.2d 655, 684 (1996); State v. Miles, 186 Ariz. 10, 18, 918 P.2d 1028, 1036 (1996); State v. Johnson, 147 Ariz. 395, 401, 710 P.2d 1050, 1056 (1985). We are thus left without adequate evidence to establish these components of (F)(6). The state asks us to consider additional factors, most notably that the victim was not a stranger but someone who had befriended defendant and tried to help him during a difficult time. A few cases have mentioned the relationship between a defendant and a victim when evaluating aggravation, however (F)(6) has only been established where there was significantly more proof of gratuitous violence. See State v. Wallace, 151 Ariz. 362, 367-68, 728 P.2d 232, 237-38 (1986); State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 252, 686 P.2d 750, 775 (1984). We refuse to find this circumstance based solely on the relationship between defendant and the victim. To do so would expand the meaning of heinous and depraved, thereby instituting a regime of ad hoc sentencing, destroying the definitional consistency [and constitutionality] of our sentencing process. See State v. Barreras, 181 Ariz. 516, 523, 892 P.2d 852, 859 (1995).
Defendant argues that the court applied its own nonstatutory factors such as moral outrage, and improperly used him as a vehicle to promote social control. For a capital sentencing scheme to pass constitutional scrutiny, discretion must be suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action. State v. Mata, 185 Ariz. 319, 323, 916 P.2d 1035, 1039 (1996)(quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 189, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). The trial court can give weight only to evidence that tends to establish an aggravating circumstance enumerated in A.R.S. § 13-703(F). See State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46, 66, 906 P.2d 579, 599 (1995). There is nothing here to indicate that the sentencing judge overstepped these boundaries. After discussing at length the aggravating circumstances as well as the defense's proffered mitigation, the judge characterized capital punishment as an expression of the moral outrage of our society at a particular horrible and offensive conduct. He also mentioned deterrence as a goal of our criminal justice system in general and of capital punishment in particular. Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume the judge was capable of focusing on relevant factors and of setting aside irrelevant and emotional ones. See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 316, 896 P.2d 830, 856 (1995). The above remarks do not demonstrate that the court abandoned constitutional mandates and sentenced defendant under its own beliefs.