Opinion ID: 867281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Evidentiary Basis for Enmund/Tison Findings

Text: ¶ 53 Garcia argues that the State did not prove the Enmund/Tison predicate beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends that he had only a limited role in the murder and that his participation in the robbery was insufficient to support the jury's finding. ¶ 54 We review the jury's Enmund/Tison finding for substantial evidence, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict. State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 368-69 ¶ 45, 111 P.3d 402, 410-11 (2005). Substantial evidence exists when there is such proof that `reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980)). ¶ 55 The Eighth Amendment prohibits imposition of the death penalty unless the defendant kill[s], attempt[s] to kill, or intend[s] that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed, Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 797, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), or is a major participant in the underlying felony and acts with reckless indifference to human life, Tison, 481 U.S. at 158, 107 S.Ct. 1676. Garcia was convicted under Tison; thus, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia was a major participant in the crime and was recklessly indifferent to Johnson's life. See id. at 158, 107 S.Ct. 1676; State v. Tison, 160 Ariz. 501, 502, 774 P.2d 805, 806 (1989). ¶ 56 Substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Garcia was a major participant in the underlying robbery. He initially entered the bar alone through the front door, which suggests that he was casing the scene. He and Sheffield later entered through the back door and Garcia shouted at Johnson to drop the money. The evidence established that Garcia was actively involved in every element of the [robbery] and was physically present during the entire sequence of criminal activity culminating in Johnson's murder. See Tison, 481 U.S. at 158, 107 S.Ct. 1676. ¶ 57 Substantial evidence also supports the jury's finding that Garcia acted with reckless indifference to human life. Tison characterized such action as knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death. 481 U.S. at 157, 107 S.Ct. 1676. ¶ 58 Garcia attempts to analogize his case to Lacy, which held that the State had failed to prove reckless indifference beyond a reasonable doubt. 187 Ariz. at 351-53, 929 P.2d at 1299-1301. In Lacy, the defendant went to the victims' apartment with his co-defendant to get chemicals to make drugs. Id. at 345, 929 P.2d at 1293. While there, his co-defendant argued with the victims and shot one. Id. The defendant claimed that he ran out, taking a microwave with him. Id. When he re-entered the apartment, his co-defendant had tied up the other victim and was shooting her in the head. Id. The defendant stated that he then ran away again, and his co-defendant later picked him up and drove him home. Id. Given those facts, we found that there was little to establish [the defendant's] involvement in the [victims'] deaths, and that without the defendant's testimony, there would be an almost complete void as to what occurred that night. Id. at 352, 929 P.2d at 1300 (noting that it was both unclear whether defendant knew that his co-defendant had a gun and whether he should have anticipated violence). Although the defendant stole a microwave after one of the murders and did nothing to prevent either victim's death, that conduct alone did not establish reckless indifference. Id. ¶ 59 This case, however, differs in several important respects. First, unlike the defendant in Lacy, who accompanied his co-defendant to get drug chemicals and may not have anticipated violence, Garcia accompanied Sheffield to rob a bar. Garcia had every reason to anticipate violence, because he knew Sheffield had shot someone during the RNR Stix robbery just weeks before. ¶ 60 Second, there is no comparable void in the evidence about what occurred at Harley's. Anderson testified that Garcia led Sheffield into the bar and helped overcome Johnson by pushing him against the wall. A shirt spotted with Johnson's blood was found near the murder scene; a button consistent with one missing from the shirt was found on Johnson's person. The shirt, the parties stipulated, also contained a mixed sample of DNA that was 21,000 times more likely to have come from Garcia and two unknown individuals than from three unknown individuals. This evidence shows that Garcia played an active role in the murder. ¶ 61 Third, there is no evidence that Garcia attempted to flee at any point during the course of events. Indeed, the evidence showed that he continued to act in concert with Sheffield after the murder. ¶ 62 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Garcia was a major participant in the robbery and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Cf. State v. Bearup, 221 Ariz. 163, 166, 171-72 ¶¶ 3, 37-43, 211 P.3d 684, 687, 692-93 (2009) (rejecting Lacy -based argument when defendant accompanied others to commit violent crime and evidence established his role in events leading up to and following murder).