Opinion ID: 2736105
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Penalty-Phase Proceedings

Text: ¶19 Ms. Wells and Ms. Palacios also acted as the lead attorneys during the penalty phase of the proceedings. In that phase, Mr. Menzies waived his right to a jury. During the penalty phase, the State argued that Judge Uno should impose the death penalty. In making this argument, the State relied primarily on the evidence produced during the guilt-phase proceedings and on Mr. Menzies‘s criminal history. Trial counsel proffered mitigation and background evidence to suggest that Mr. Menzies should not receive a death sentence. After considering trial counsel‘s mitigation defense, Judge Uno imposed the death penalty. Mr. Menzies she was not a sitting judge. Further, we refer to Ms. Wells and Ms. Palacios collectively as ―trial counsel.‖ 12 Mr. Menzies repeatedly asserts that trial counsel did not rely on a failure-of-proof defense. He suggests instead that trial counsel‘s ―principal theory was that the victim . . . voluntarily risked losing her job, her marriage, and custody of her children, for a date with a mentally ill stranger because she was clinically depressed.‖ There are statements by trial counsel in the record that suggest as much. But read in context, these statements go to the second part of trial counsel‘s two-part failure-of-proof strategy—whether the State could prove an aggravator that would support a capital conviction. Trial counsel‘s defense strategy did not rely solely on the notion that Mrs. Hunsaker left with Mr. Menzies voluntarily. Trial counsel‘s closing argument summarizes the defense theory as follows: ―[w]hat you must do today [is] decide has the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a first degree homicide. . . . you then determine if it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Menzies, the person accused, is the one who committed that offense.‖ 9 MENZIES v. STATE Opinion of the Court