Opinion ID: 867411
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Imposition of the clear and convincing evidence standard

Text: ¶ 30 Citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996), Grell asserts the unconstitutionality of requiring him to prove mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. In Cooper, the Court, having already declared that the defendant must bear the burden of proving competency to stand trial, id. at 355, 116 S.Ct. 1373, held that the defendant may not be forced to prove his competency by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 369, 116 S.Ct. 1373. The Court evaluated the right not to be tried while incompetent and weighed the impact of its loss on the defendant to determine the appropriate standard of proof. Id. at 354, 364, 116 S.Ct. 1373. The Court observed that the right not to be tried if incompetent is a fundamental principle of justice [so] rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people that its violation threatens . . . the basic fairness of the trial itself. Id. at 364, 116 S.Ct. 1373. ¶ 31 Furthermore, the Court reasoned, the heightened standard of proof affected only those defendants who could prove they were incompetent, but could not do so by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 366-67, 116 S.Ct. 1373. The higher standard affected those defendants' only opportunity to contest competency, creating a grave risk of violating their right not to be tried while incompetent. Id. The Court concluded that the defendants' interest outweighed the government's lesser interest in trying a probably incompetent defendant. Id. The Court also noted that forty-six other state jurisdictions used a lower standard of proof, showing consensus that Oklahoma's higher standard was unnecessary to serve the state's needs and inappropriate in light of the importance of the right. Id. at 361-62, 116 S.Ct. 1373. The Court therefore held that due process limits the burden on the defendant to prove competency to stand trial by a standard no higher than preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 368-69, 116 S.Ct. 1373. ¶ 32 As was the Court in Cooper, we have been asked to assess the statutory imposition of a clear and convincing evidence standard in a situation in which a preponderance standard would be permissible. Although the right not to be executed if mentally retarded is of recent vintage, itlike the right not to stand trial if incompetentis a constitutional right based on modern consensus and historical views regarding the propriety of executing those who may be less morally culpable because of their reduced mental capacity. See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 320-21, 122 S.Ct. 2242. We also note that, following Atkins, all but one jurisdiction that has chosen a burden has chosen preponderance of the evidence. [7] We might have done so as well, were there no Arizona statute already in place. The question before us, however, is whether the standard chosen by the legislature to protect admittedly important state interests can withstand constitutional scrutiny. ¶ 33 The statutory scheme enacted by the Arizona legislature does not merely prohibit execution of the mentally retarded. It provides a detailed, bifurcated process that requires a pretrial hearing at which a defendant may attempt to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has mental retardation; if he fails to make that showing, the defendant may still present mental retardation evidence to the jury in mitigation of his sentence. A.R.S. § 13-703.02. The statutory process gives the defendant with an IQ of 75 or below the opportunity to be examined by at least two psychological experts to determine his IQ. A.R.S. § 13-703.02(B), (D). Those with at least one full-scale IQ test result of 70 or below proceed for further evaluation and an evidentiary hearing. A.R.S. § 13-703.02(F), (G). Although the defendant bears the ultimate burden to prove mental retardation, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption of mental retardation if the defendant's IQ is 65 or below. A.R.S. § 13-703.02(G). [8] ¶ 34 The Arizona statute sets up a process similar to that used in Colorado and Indiana, and courts in both those states have evaluated the constitutionality of requiring a defendant to prove mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. [9] Compare People v. Vasquez, 84 P.3d 1019 (Colo.2004) (approving use of clear and convincing standard in a pretrial hearing), with Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind.2005) (finding a clear and convincing standard unconstitutional). Grell and our dissenting colleague rely heavily on analysis from Cooper that also formed the basis of the Pruitt opinion. They argue that the definitive inquiry is the assessment of the relative risks faced by the parties: the defendant's risk of death compared to the state's minimal interest in executing a defendant who will otherwise go to prison for life. ¶ 35 With respect to statutes like those in Arizona, Indiana, and Colorado, however, Grell overstates his case. As the Colorado Supreme Court stressed in Vasquez, the defendant's risk at a pretrial hearing is not death, but a capital trial. [10] 84 P.3d at 1023. By creating a pretrial process, the legislature provided a way for mentally retarded defendants to avoid the burden of a capital trial and the risk of imposition of the capital penalty. All defendants who do not prove mental retardation at the pretrial hearing retain the ability to present mental retardation evidence to the jury under a preponderance standard in the penalty phase of the trial. That opportunity reduces the ultimate risk they face from an adverse determination in the pretrial mental retardation hearing. ¶ 36 The court in Pruitt acknowledged but rejected the argument that the defendant's ability to argue mental retardation evidence in mitigation to the jury under a preponderance of the evidence standard adequately safeguards the defendant's rights. It reasoned that [m]entally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution. 834 N.E.2d at 103 (quoting Atkins, 536 U.S. at 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242). Although the acknowledged risk that the Pruitt court identifies may justify barring the execution of the mentally retarded, it does not suggest the need for any particular procedure to ascertain mental retardation. Under Arizona's statutory procedure, these defendants about whom there is consensus against execution will be screened out at the pretrial stage. Given that fact, we cannot say that those unable to establish retardation by clear and convincing evidence face such a severe risk at sentencing that they may not constitutionally be put through the capital trial process. ¶ 37 Although the Court in Atkins clearly announced that states may not execute the mentally retarded, it recognized that people may disagree over which individuals in fact have mental retardation. 536 U.S. at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242. Before Atkins, states had already begun to develop their own procedures, and had drawn in different places the line for establishing the mental retardation that would bar execution. Knowing this, the Court explicitly left the procedure for determining mental retardation to the states. Id. State procedures must ensure that those about whom there is national consensus are protected from execution, but left states otherwise free to craft their laws for determining which defendants meet the consensus standard. By providing differing procedures based on the defendant's IQ, Arizona law reflects this concept. Those with IQ scores of 65 or below face a comparatively lower bar, while those whose IQ scores suggest greater intelligence must go to greater lengths to prove their mental retardation. The legislature placed a heavier burden on those who do not fall within the group about whom there is national consensus regarding their right not to be executed. The procedure occurs early in the capital process and removes defendants found to have mental retardation from exposure to a capital trial and hence to a sentence of death. See A.R.S. § 13-703.02(C), (F), (G). The application of Arizona's tiered procedure does not deprive Grell of a right rooted in fundamental justice. ¶ 38 Finally, in response to the reliance of the defendant and our dissenting colleague on the analysis in Cooper, 517 U.S. at 348, 116 S.Ct. 1373, we note the significant differences between the right not to be tried while incompetent and the right not to be executed if mentally retarded. First, a defendant found incompetent to stand trial is protected from having to submit to trial on any charges unless he is restored to competency. See id. A defendant deemed to have mental retardation, however, is not shielded from trial. See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 318, 122 S.Ct. 2242. Despite the risks that a mentally retarded defendant might not present well to a jury, such a defendant can be tried, found guilty, and sentenced to any statutory criminal penalty other than death. This legal distinction suggests that mental retardation differs constitutionally from incompetence to stand trial. ¶ 39 The second distinction relates to the risk of malingering. A defendant who successfully feigns incompetence to stand trial will not have to submit to trial at that time. Generally, however, such a defendant is sent to a mental health facility for treatment and further examination of his competency. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 11.5(b)(2)(i). Most often, the defendant is either restored to competency or discovered to be malingering. In the event of either occurrence, the defendant is subject to trial and punishment, including the death penalty, if appropriate. On the other hand, once a court determines that a defendant has mental retardation, that defendant may never suffer the punishment of execution, even if he is later discovered to have been malingering. These concerns support the heightened standard that the legislature has imposed to protect the interests of Arizona citizens. ¶ 40 A better comparison lies between claims of mental retardation as a bar to execution and claims of mental incompetence as a bar to execution. The defendant asserting the latter claim is also subject to a clear and convincing evidence burden of proof. See A.R.S. § 13-4022(F) (clear and convincing burden of proof); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 410, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from inflicting the penalty of death upon a prisoner who is insane). We are aware of no case finding it violative of the Constitution to require a defendant to prove incompetence to be executed by clear and convincing evidence. ¶ 41 In sum, we conclude that requiring the defendant to prove mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence in the initial retardation hearing does not violate constitutional standards.