Opinion ID: 1405283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Alleged Constitutional Defects of the Arizona Death Penalty

Text: ¶ 78 Defendant raises numerous constitutional challenges to Arizona's death penalty. We have previously considered and rejected them as follows: Death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. But see State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46, 72-73, 906 P.2d 579, 605-06 (1995). Lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. But see State v. Hinchey, 181 Ariz. 307, 315, 890 P.2d 602, 610 (1995). Requiring death penalty for one aggravator is unconstitutional. But see State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 310, 896 P.2d 830, 850 (1995); Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 651-52, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3056, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990). No right to death-qualify sentencer. But see State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 645-46 n. 21(3), 832 P.2d 593, 662-63 n. 21(3) (1992). No statutory standards for weighing. But see State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 291, 908 P.2d 1062, 1076 (1996), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 117 S.Ct. 393, 136 L.Ed.2d 308 (1996). Requiring the defendant to prove mitigating factors is unconstitutional. But see Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 72, 906 P.2d at 605. Death-eligible class not sufficiently narrowed by the cruel, heinous or depraved aggravator. But see id. Presumption that death penalty is appropriate is unconstitutional. But see Spears, 184 Ariz. at 291, 908 P.2d at 1076. Consideration of mitigation evidence too restricted. But see Walton, 497 U.S. at 651-52, 110 S.Ct. at 3056, 111 L.Ed.2d 511; State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 514-15, 815 P.2d 869, 883-84 (1991). Capital statutes discriminate against poor male defendants as applied. But see State v. Stokley, 182 Ariz. 505, 516, 898 P.2d 454, 465 (1995); Jeffers v. Lewis, 38 F.3d 411, 419 (9th Cir.1994). Sentencer's discretion insufficiently channeled. But see State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 501, 910 P.2d 635, 652 (1996), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 117 S.Ct. 150, 136 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996). Multiple mitigating factors not required to be considered cumulatively. But see State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 349, 368, 861 P.2d 634, 653 (1993). Trial court not required to make findings as to mitigating factors. But see id. at 358, 861 P.2d at 643. Prosecutor's discretion to seek death penalty lacks standards. But see Spears, 184 Ariz. at 291, 908 P.2d at 1076. Proportionality review constitutionally required. But see Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51, 104 S.Ct. 871, 879, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984); State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 416-17, 844 P.2d 566, 583-84 (1992).