Opinion ID: 867402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Fetal Manslaughter Sentence

Text: ¶ 63 Hampton contends that his manslaughter sentence should not have been consecutive to the two death sentences because of the prohibition on double punishment in A.R.S. § 13-116 (2001). He argues that, because both Tanya Ramsdell and the fetus were killed with a single gunshot, the crime should be deemed a single act for which consecutive sentences cannot be imposed. ¶ 64 Under A.R.S. § 13-116, [a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent. The statute bars consecutive sentences when the defendant's conduct is a single act. State v. Gordon, 161 Ariz. 308, 315, 778 P.2d 1204, 1211 (1989). ¶ 65 The statute, however, does not prevent consecutive sentences for crimes involving multiple victims: A.R.S. § 13-116 has never been interpreted literally. For instance, the words of the statute draw no distinction between single victims and multiple victims. Nevertheless, our courts have held that a single act that harms multiple victims may be punished by consecutive sentences. Id. at 313 n. 4, 778 P.2d at 1209 n. 4 (citations omitted). In this case, Ramsdell's unborn child was a victim of a crime under § 13-1103(A)(5), and the sentence for that homicide can be imposed consecutively to the sentences for the murders of Findley and Ramsdell.