Opinion ID: 1035394
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ring Claim

Text: In Ring v. Arizona (Ring II), 536 U.S. 584, 588–89 (2002), the Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to a jury determination of “the presence or absence of the aggravating factors required by Arizona law for imposition of the death penalty.” This holding followed from the Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.” In response to Ring II, Arizona amended its capital sentencing scheme. See State v. Ring (Ring III), 65 P.3d 915, 926 (Ariz. 2003) (en banc) (describing Senate Bill 1001). The new procedure allowed the jury to find and 22 MURDAUGH V . RYAN consider the effect of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and to decide whether the defendant should be sentenced to death. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703.01(D) (2002). On remand from the Supreme Court, the Arizona Supreme Court considered the impact of Ring II on all capital cases then pending on direct appeal. Ring III, 65 P.3d at 925. The court held that failing to submit capital aggravating factors to a jury did not require reversing the sentence if the error was harmless. Id. at 933–36. In reviewing Ring error for harmlessness, the court concluded that it was required to consider whether reversible Ring error occurred with respect to both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See id. at 942–43. In separate opinions, the court then individually reviewed for Ring error the death sentences of twenty-one defendants. In nineteen of these cases, the court found Ring error was not harmless and remanded for resentencing.4 Here, obviously, the court did not. 4 State v. Lamar, 115 P.3d 611 (Ariz. 2005); State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004); State v. Dann, 79 P.3d 58 (Ariz. 2003); State v. M ontano, 77 P.3d 1246 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Nordstrom, 77 P.3d 40 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Rutledge, 76 P.3d 443 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Prasertphong, 76 P.3d 438 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Ring, 76 P.3d 421 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Cropper, 76 P.3d 424 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Prince, 75 P.3d 114 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Jones, 72 P.3d 1264 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Phillips, 67 P.3d 1228 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Finch, 68 P.3d 123 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Tucker, 68 P.3d 110 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Lehr, 67 P.3d 703 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Harrod, 65 P.3d 948 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Pandeli, 65 P.3d 950 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Hoskins, 65 P.3d 953 (Ariz. 2003); State v. Canez, 74 P.3d 932 (Ariz. 2003). MURDAUGH V . RYAN 23 A) Scope of the Right We must first determine the scope of the right articulated in Ring II. The state argues that our review for Ring error is limited by the express wording of Ring II, 536 U.S. at 588–89, which addressed only “the aggravating factors required by Arizona law for imposition of the death penalty.”5 A narrow reading of Ring II would extend the Sixth Amendment right no further than its express holding by concluding that a defendant only has a right to have a jury determine aggravating factors. We are not convinced that Ring II should be read so narrowly. Echoing Apprendi, the Ring II Court held that a jury must find any fact upon which the “increase of a defendant’s authorized punishment [is] contingent.” Ring II, 536 U.S. at 602 (citing Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 482–83). The Court stressed that “the inquiry is one not of form, but of effect.” Id. (quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the penalty of death was contingent on the presence or absence of aggravating factors under Arizona law, the Court held that Apprendi required a jury to find them. Id. at 609. But the existence of an aggravating factor was not the only death-qualifying element of Arizona’s superseded capital sentencing statute. In Ring II, the Supreme Court described several determinations that had to occur under Arizona law before a defendant became death-eligible, 5 The question presented in Ring II was: “whether [the] aggravating factor may be found by the judge . . . or whether the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee . . . requires that the aggravating factor determination be entrusted to the jury.” 536 U.S. at 597. 24 MURDAUGH V . RYAN including the judge’s determination that “there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.” Id. at 593 (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F) (2001)).6 Arizona’s sentencing scheme required a judge “to determine if there are any mitigating circumstances” and “weigh them against the aggravators and decide by ‘special verdict’ whether a death sentence is appropriate.” State v. Ring (Ring I), 25 P.3d 1139, 1151 (Ariz. 2001) (citations omitted). The statute required “more than the presence of one or more statutorily defined aggravating factors to impose the death penalty.” Ring III, 65 P.3d at 946. It also mandated that “a trier of fact . . . determine whether mitigating circumstances call[ed] for leniency.” Id. Under the superseded law, a defendant’s eligibility for a death sentence was effectively contingent on the judge’s findings regarding both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The “ultimate element” qualifying the defendant for death was “at least one aggravating circumstance not outweighed by one or more mitigating factors.” Ring III, 65 P.3d at 935 (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(E)); see also Ring II, 536 U.S. at 593. A judge’s determination that no mitigating circumstances existed therefore also served to establish a fact that qualified a defendant for the death sentence. Applying the rationale of Apprendi and Ring II, the existence or absence of a mitigating circumstance was thus a finding of fact upon which the “increase of a defendant’s authorized punishment [was] contingent.” Ring II, 536 U.S. at 602. 6 Unless otherwise noted, subsequent citations to Arizona statutes refer to those statutes as they existed in 2001. MURDAUGH V . RYAN 25 This reasoning makes sense given the nature of factfinding at the death-sentencing stage. A finding that certain facts establish an aggravating factor often necessarily implies that the same facts do not establish a mitigating factor. In this appeal, for instance, Murdaugh argues his dismemberment of Reynolds’s body demonstrates his paranoia and delusions, and therefore helps establish a mitigating circumstance. The state argues, conversely, that the mutilation establishes that the murder was depraved. In finding that dismemberment supported the (F)(6) aggravating factor, then, the trial judge also implicitly found that this evidence did not establish any mitigating factors. The intertwined nature of the inquiry means that a factfinder’s analysis of aggravating factors in isolation is conceptually untenable. A jury’s findings concerning aggravating factors are also necessarily intertwined with its findings about mitigating circumstances because of the process for hearing evidence at the sentencing stage. A jury does not hear the aggravating evidence in a void. Rather, a defendant presents mitigating evidence, following the state’s presentation of aggravating evidence, in an attempt to establish some basis for leniency. See Ariz. Rev. State. §§ 13-752(E)–(G) (2012). It would be impossible for a jury to consider only the aggravating evidence in determining whether the aggravating factors were met without also implicitly considering contravening mitigating evidence. A jury that has listened to extensive mitigating evidence about the defendant’s good character, for instance, may be much less likely to find the defendant acted heinously or cruelly in committing the offense. The right to 26 MURDAUGH V . RYAN have a jury determine aggravating factors is therefore also a de facto right to have a jury determine mitigating facts.7 7 In practical effect, Ring II created a right to have the jury determine all the facts on which a sentence of death depended, both aggravating and mitigating, since capital sentencing statutes assigned this function to one factfinder. See Ring III, 65 P.3d at 943. The capital sentencing statutes in all states with the death penalty, with the sole exception of Nebraska, now require juries to consider mitigating evidence, determine the existence or absence of mitigating circumstances, and decide whether death is the appropriate sentence. See Ala. Stat. § 13A-5-46(e); Ark. Code §§ 5-4-602 (3)–(5), 603(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-752; Cal. Penal Code § 190.3; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1201(2)(a); Del. Code tit. 11, § 4209(c)(3); Fla. Stat. § 921.141(2); Ga. Code §§ 17-10-30(b), 31(a); Idaho Code § 19-2515(3)(b); Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(l); Kan. Stat. § 216617(e); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.025(1)(b), (3); La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 905.3; M d. Crim. Law § 2-303(i)(1); Miss. Code § 99-19-101(3); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 565.030.4, 565.032; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 630:5(IV); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(b); N.Y. Crim. Proc. § 400.27; Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.03(D)(2); Okla. Stat., tit. 21, § 701.11; Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.150; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9711; S.C. Code § 16-3-20; S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-27A-3; Tenn. Code § 39-13-204; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071; Utah Code § 76-3-207; Va. Code § 19.2-264.4; W ash. Rev. Code § 10.95.060; W yo. Stat. § 6-2-102. Although Montana has not revised its capital sentencing scheme since Ring II, see Mont. Code 46-18-301, the state also has not sentenced any defendant to death since 1996. See Death Penalty Information Center, Death Sentences in the United States from 1977 By State and By Year, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-sentences-united-states-1977-2008 (last visited April 18, 2013). The jury plays a similar role in the federal capital sentencing statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3594. Even in those states where the ultimate jury recommendation of death remains nonbinding, the jury retains the role of first factfinder. See Ala. Stat. § 13A-5-46(e); Del. Code tit. 11, § 4209(c)(3); Fla. Stat. § 921.141(2); Ga. Code §§ 17-10-30(b), 31(a); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.025(1)(b), (3). MURDAUGH V . RYAN 27 As the Supreme Court has stressed repeatedly, how a fact is labeled is irrelevant to the Apprendi analysis. See Ring II, 536 U.S. at 602; Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494. It is the effect of a fact that dictates whether a jury must determine it. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494; see also Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013) (reiterating that any fact that has the effect of increasing the penalty for a crime must be submitted to the jury). Because the existence or absence of mitigating circumstances directly affected whether Murdaugh was death eligible under Arizona law, he had a right to have a jury decide those facts.8 B) Standard of Review We next address Murdaugh’s argument that, contrary to the holding of the Arizona Supreme Court, Ring error is structural and should not be subject to harmless error review. In Ring II, the Supreme Court did not reach the question of whether the Ring error there was harmless, noting that “this Court ordinarily leaves it to lower courts to pass on the harmlessness of error in the first instance.” 536 U.S. at 609 n.7 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999)). The Court reiterated that it had left open the question of whether the error in Ring II was harmless in Mitchell v. 8 A narrow reading of Ring II is particularly problematic for an appellate court reviewing a Ring error for harmlessness. In many cases, the question of whether the judge’s role in finding aggravating factors prejudiced the verdict will depend on the extant mitigating circumstances. Consider a judge who found two aggravating factors when a jury would have found only one. If there are no mitigating circumstances to counterbalance the unblemished aggravator, the error is inconsequential— but if there are substantial mitigating circumstances, the error might make all the difference. See State v. Lehr, 67 P.3d 703, 705 (Ariz. 2003). 28 MURDAUGH V . RYAN Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17 (2003). The Court emphasized that where it has not set forth a standard of review for a constitutional error and the Court’s precedent “is, at best, ambiguous,” a federal court may not overrule a state court’s decision to apply harmless error review. Id. In Ring III, the Arizona Supreme Court definitively answered this question, applying the harmless error standard set forth in Neder. 65 P.3d at 935–36. As part of this review, the court asked whether it could conclude, “beyond a reasonable doubt, that no rational trier of fact would determine that the mitigating circumstances were sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.” Id. at 946. If, in future Ring error cases, the court could not answer this question in the affirmative, it would remand the case for resentencing by a jury. Id. The state challenged the Arizona Supreme Court’s application of the harmless error test, arguing that this application of harmless error review, which included review of the mitigating factors for harmless error, was beyond the scope of the constitutional error articulated in Ring II. See Nordstrom, 77 P.3d at 46 n.5. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected this argument, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Pandeli, 540 U.S. 962 (2003). Thus, it is now well-settled that Ring error is subject to the harmless error test articulated in Ring III, and we may not reconsider the issue here. C) Harmless Error Review Harmless error analysis requires federal courts to determine “whether the error ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)). We “apply the MURDAUGH V . RYAN 29 Brecht test without regard for the state court’s harmlessness determination.” Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 121–22 (2007)). The Brecht standard has been described as follows: [I]f one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. Merolillo v. Yates, 663 F.3d 444, 454 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 765). “Where the record is so evenly balanced that a judge ‘feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error’ and has ‘grave doubt about whether an error affected a jury [substantially and injuriously], the judge must treat the error as if it did so.’” Id. (quoting O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435, 437–38 (1995)) (alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted). Of course, here, the underlying error is the absence of a jury itself. Accordingly, the Brecht inquiry is whether the absence of a jury as factfinder at the penalty stage “substantially and injuriously” affected or influenced the outcome. In other words, we ask whether a rational jury could have found that the facts called for leniency. In order to determine whether Murdaugh has met the Brecht standard, we review the aggravating and mitigating factors. 30 MURDAUGH V . RYAN a) Aggravating factors The Arizona Supreme Court held that the (F)(1) aggravating factor fell outside the Ring rule and concluded that the government had proven the (F)(6) aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.9 Murdaugh does not challenge the court’s determination as to the (F)(1) aggravating factor. With respect to the (F)(6) factor, he argues that the Arizona Supreme Court’s conclusion that any rational jury would have found the aggravating factor “hinged upon Murdaugh’s mutilation of the body after the crime,” which the court further found “needed to be motivated by debasement.” Since he mutilated the body to avoid detection, Murdaugh contends a rational jury might not have found the F(6) factor. But the court did not “hinge” its determination that the state had proven the (F)(6) factor on Murdaugh’s mutilation of the body alone. Murdaugh, 97 P.3d at 856. The court correctly noted that the (F)(6) aggravating factor would have been established if the state had proven only one of the heinous, cruel, or depraved elements. Id. And, although the court concluded that “mutilation by itself will establish the elements of heinousness or depravity,” id. at 858, the court nonetheless found that three other factors also supported a finding that the act was “heinous or depraved.” According to the court, the state established beyond a reasonable doubt that 9 Recall that the (F)(1) aggravating factor is established when a defendant “has been convicted of another offense in the United States for which under Arizona law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703. The (F)(6) aggravating factor is established if the murder was committed in an “especially cruel, heinous or depraved manner.” Id. MURDAUGH V . RYAN 31 (1) Murdaugh relished the murder, (2) the murder was senseless, and (3) the victim was helpless. Id. at 856. Murdaugh is also incorrect in asserting that the Arizona Supreme Court found the mutilation “needed to be motivated by debasement.” To the contrary, the court described how Murdaugh mutilated the body to prevent identification and cited State v. James, 685 P.2d 1293, 1299 (Ariz. 1984), for the proposition that “[t]he mode of disposing of the body itself demonstrates a certain callousness and depravity and disregard for the victim’s family who might never have learned of the fate of [the victim].” Id. at 857. Thus, regardless of Murdaugh’s ultimate purpose in mutilating the body, the court concluded the mutilation demonstrated depravity for purposes of finding the (F)(6) factor. Id. Although Murdaugh is correct that “heinous and depraved” refers to the mental state of the defendant, it is the defendant’s “words and actions” which demonstrate this mental state. See State v. Gretzler, 659 P.2d 1, 10 (Ariz. 1983) (en banc). The Arizona Supreme Court has repeatedly held that needlessly mutilating a body is the kind of action that shows depravity, regardless of the mutilator’s purpose. See State v. Spencer, 859 P.2d 146, 154 (Ariz. 1993); James, 685 P.2d at 1299. We conclude that no rational jury could have found that the evidence failed to establish the (F)(6) factor. b) Mitigating factors Murdaugh next argues that a rational jury could have found that his evidence established the (G)(1) mitigating factor and consequently imposed a sentence of life, not death. We agree. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the 32 MURDAUGH V . RYAN Ring error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the trial court’s failure to find the (G)(1) mitigating factor and thus the trial court’s imposition of a death sentence. The (G)(1) factor exists if the “defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(1). Drug impairment can be a mitigating circumstance under the (G)(1) factor, but only if the defendant can show a connection between the drug use and the offense. See State v. Sansing, 77 P.3d 30, 37 (Ariz. 2003). Typically, testimony by an expert witness can establish this causal nexus. Id. The claim of drug impairment is undermined, though, if the evidence shows “the defendant took steps to avoid prosecution shortly after the murder, or when it appears that intoxication did not overwhelm the defendant’s ability to control his physical behavior.” Id. (quoting State v. Rienhardt, 951 P.2d 454, 466–67 (Ariz. 1997) (en banc)). Even though Murdaugh did not present a mitigation case, the trial court considered the Rule 11 competency reports and Dr. Lang’s testimony in determining whether the (G)(1) mitigating factor was established. This evidence included Dr. Potts’s conclusion that “[t]he use of methamphetamine quite likely greatly contributed to the alleged offenses having occurred,” as well as Dr. Sindelar’s summary of Murdaugh’s “long history of multiple substance abuse, including intravenous injection of methamphetamine.” Based on this record, the trial court found that Murdaugh (1) evinced paranoid thoughts, including his paranoid belief that the CIA had placed a tracking device in his head; (2) had a long MURDAUGH V . RYAN 33 history of chronic drug abuse, which may have been a cause of his paranoid delusions; (3) was ingesting drugs and was under the influence of drugs when he murdered Reynolds; and (4) possibly suffered from a personality disorder amplified by methamphetamine abuse. In considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court also found that Murdaugh arranged for Reynolds to be lured to his home, imprisoned him for an extended period of time, elaborately dismembered his body, and then was able to find medical care for himself when he injured his leg. The trial court concluded that “[t]he industry and thought, manifested over an extended period of time, which went into the murder of David Reynolds belies a finding that the Defendant was significantly impaired.” On this basis, the trial court held that the record did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Murdaugh’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired, and thus that the evidence did not establish the (G)(1) mitigating factor. While it is certainly possible that a reasonable jury could have agreed with the trial judge and found that the facts surrounding the murder undermined the evidence of drug impairment in the Rule 11 reports, it is also entirely possible that a rational trier of fact could have drawn the opposite conclusion and found Murdaugh’s actions did not evince a sober mind. See, e.g., Nordstrom, 77 P.3d at 46. This is particularly true in light of the low burden of proof for finding a statutory mitigating factor: a nonunanimous jury need only find the mitigating factor supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(C). For instance, a reasonable jury might not have found that Murdaugh’s actions to cover up the murder 34 MURDAUGH V . RYAN demonstrated any kind of sober sophistication. Instead of cleaning up the crime scene, Murdaugh asked Rohrs and Gross to sprinkle horse manure over Reynolds’s body and on the surrounding blood, and then left the body there for the remainder of the day. It was not until that evening—probably at least eight to ten hours after the crime—that Murdaugh dismembered the body. Thus, a reasonable jury might not have found Murdaugh’s attempt to thwart identification of the body to be inconsistent with a finding that Murdaugh was “significantly, but only partially, impaired” at the time of the offense. Gretzler, 659 P.2d at 17. That a rational jury might have found that the evidence established the (G)(1) mitigating factor is sufficient to establish prejudice under Brecht. The Arizona Supreme Court’s determination that any error was harmless casts no doubt on our conclusion, because that court clearly failed to consider evidence in the record—evidence that the trial court did consider in determining whether the (G)(1) mitigating factor was established. In reviewing the trial court’s finding on the (G)(1) factor for harmless error, the Arizona Supreme Court stated that it considered the reasoning of the trial court, the testimony of Dr. Lang and “uncontroverted evidence in the record . . . that Murdaugh took steps to avoid detection.” Murdaugh, 97 P.3d at 860. The court found that because Murdaugh did not present any mitigation, he did not present “any expert testimony to establish that his ability to control his behavior or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct was significantly impaired.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, “[b]ecause of the complete lack of evidence of a causal connection between Murdaugh’s drug use and the murder,” the court concluded “beyond a reasonable doubt that no rational jury would have found that Murdaugh established the MURDAUGH V . RYAN 35 (G)(1) mitigating circumstance.” Id. at 860 (emphasis added). Murdaugh correctly argues that the Arizona Supreme Court failed to consider the Rule 11 competency reports, which included expert testimony establishing a direct causal link between Murdaugh’s drug use and the murder. Under then-existing Arizona case law, the Rule 11 reports were the kind of evidence that could have established drug impairment for purposes of the (G)(1) factor. See Gretzler, 659 P.2d at 16–17 (concluding the evidence supported trial judge’s finding of the (G)(1) factor when the defendant “used drugs continuously for a period of over nine years” and “medical testimony [showed] that this continuous use of drugs likely impaired defendant’s volitional capabilities”). Moreover, in applying harmless error analysis in other Ring error cases, the Arizona Supreme Court has found reversible error as to the (G)(1) factor based solely on the contradicted testimony of one expert. See Pandeli, 65 P.3d at 953; see also Nordstrom, 77 P.3d at 46 (finding Ring error where defendant presented evidence from one expert on the possible connection between defendant’s alcohol and substance abuse and the murders even though the evidence “was not particularly compelling”). Thus, under the Arizona Supreme Court’s own cases, we cannot see how the Arizona Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded that no rational jury could find the evidence here supported drug impairment by a preponderance of the evidence. Had the Arizona Supreme Court considered all the evidence in conducting its harmless error review, it would have been impossible to conclude that no rational jury could have found the (G)(1) factor. We conclude that the absence of a jury at the sentencing stage had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on 36 MURDAUGH V . RYAN Murdaugh’s sentence of death. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Although a jury would have found the (F)(6) aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, some evidence supported the (G)(1) mitigating factor. The expert reports, though not drafted for the purpose of mitigation, provided some details about Murdaugh’s chronic drug use, which a jury might have found established drug impairment. Because a jury could have found that a preponderance of the evidence supported the (G)(1) mitigating factor, and voted for leniency on that basis, the Ring error was prejudicial. We must grant the habeas petition.10