Opinion ID: 867531
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mental Retardation as an Absolute Bar to Execution

Text: ¶ 23 Our inquiry is not yet complete. While Cañez's case remained on direct appeal, the Supreme Court announced that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution `places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life' of a mentally retarded offender. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2252, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 405, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2599, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986)). Furthermore, in 2001, shortly before the decision in Atkins was announced, the Arizona legislature enacted a statute barring the imposition of the death sentence on mentally retarded persons. [1] A.R.S. § 13-703.02 (Supp.2002). We now consider the impact of these events on Cañez's case. ¶ 24 In Atkins, the Court gave some guidance regarding how to determine whether a defendant has mental retardation. The Court noted that clinical definitions of mental retardation require not only subaverage intellectual functioning, but also significant limitations in adaptive skills such as communication, self-care, and self-direction that became manifest before age 18. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 318, 122 S.Ct. at 2250. An IQ below 70-75 indicates subaverage intellectual functioning. Id. at 309 nn. 3 & 5, 122 S.Ct. at 2245 nn. 3 & 5. ¶ 25 We addressed the application of the standards set forth in Atkins to our death penalty cases in State v. Grell, 205 Ariz. 57, 66 P.3d 1234 (2003). Like Cañez, Grell was sentenced to death after the trial judge found that he had failed to establish that he had mental retardation. Id. at 61, ¶ 27, 66 P.3d at 1238. We noted in Grell that because Grell was sentenced before the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins, the trial judge had considered the mental retardation evidence from the perspective that such evidence might establish a statutory mitigating factor calling for leniency in sentencing, not from the perspective that such evidence might establish an absolute bar to execution. Id. at 63, ¶ 37, 66 P.3d at 1240. We concluded that the Atkins decision prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded offenders as well as Arizona's new statute barring the imposition of the death penalty on mentally retarded offenders had so changed the landscape of death penalty jurisprudence that the trial court simply could not have applied the correct principles during sentencing. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. As a consequence, we held that due process required that Grell's case be remanded for an Atkins hearing to determine whether Grell has mental retardation. See id. ¶ 41. ¶ 26 As discussed above, the evidence presented at Cañez's sentencing established that his full-scale IQ was 70, placing him squarely within Atkins' definition of subaverage intellectual functioning. [2] Additional evidence established that Cañez attended special education classes during grade school, demonstrating that any subaverage mental abilities may have manifested before age 18. Most important, however, is the fact that the evidence concerning Cañez's mental abilities was considered only from the viewpoint of establishing mitigation, not as a potential bar to execution. ¶ 27 Due process demands that Cañez receive a hearing at which the court considers the mental retardation evidence under the constitutional principles announced in Atkins and the statutory standards set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703.02. We remand to the trial court to determine whether Cañez has mental retardation and therefore is ineligible to receive the death penalty. In making this determination, the trial court should follow the principles announced in Atkins and the procedures set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703.02, to the extent possible given the post-trial posture of this case. If the court determines that Cañez has mental retardation, the court shall resentence Cañez to life or natural life in prison. See id. § 13-703.02(A). If the court determines that Cañez does not have mental retardation, the court shall conduct a resentencing hearing before a jury, according to the procedures set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703.01 (Supp.2002).