State v. Ring

Decision Date03 April 2003
Citation204 Ariz. 534,65 P.3d 915
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Timothy Stuart RING, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Antoin Jones, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Danny N. Montaño, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wayne Benoit Prince, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Gene Blakley, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Henry William Hall, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Shawn Ryan Grell, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. James Edward Davolt, II, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Leroy D. Cropper, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Shad Daniel Armstrong, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Eugene Robert Tucker, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Kajornsak Prasertphong, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Christopher Bo Huerstel, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Sherman Lee Rutledge, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Christopher George Theodore Lamar, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Joe Murdaugh (A), Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Brian Jeffrey Dann, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert Joe Moody, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Keith Royal Phillips, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Marcus Lasalle Finch, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. John Edward Sansing, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. James Cornell Harrod, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Darrel Peter Pandeli aka Darrel Peter Florian, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Scott Alan Lehr, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Arturo Anda Cañez, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Aaron Scott Hoskins, Appellant. State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom, Appellant.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Janet A. Napolitano, Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Capital Litigation Section and Robert L. Ellman, Assistant Attorney General and James P. Beene, Assistant Attorney General and John P. Todd, Assistant Attorney General and Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Attorneys for State of Arizona.

Osborn Maledon, P.A., by Andrew D. Hurwitz and John A. Stookey and Daniel L. Kaplan, Phoenix, Attorneys for Timothy Stuart Ring.

Drinker Biddle & Reath, L.L.P., Philadelphia, by Lawrence J. Fox and Quarles & Brady Streich Lang, L.L.P., by Edward F. Novak, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Legal Ethicists and The Stein Center for Law and Ethics.

James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender, by Stephen R. Collins and Edward F. McGee, Phoenix, Attorneys for Antoin Jones.

Law Offices of Carla Ryan by Carla Ryan, Tucson, Attorneys for Danny N. Montaño.

James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by James L. Edgar and Charles R. Krull, Phoenix, Attorneys for Wayne Benoit Prince.

Baran Law Office, Ltd. by J. Conrad Baran, Overgaard, Attorney for Michael Gene Blakley.

Thomas A. Gorman, Flagstaff, Attorney for Henry William Hall.

Shughart Thomson Kilroy Goodwin Raup, P.C., Phoenix, by Rudolph J. Gerber and James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by James R. Rummage and Lawrence S. Matthew, Phoenix, Attorneys for Shawn Ryan Grell.

Julie Hall and Arizona Capital Representation Project Tucson by Jennifer Bedier, Tucson, Attorneys for James Edward Davolt, II.

Thomas A. Gorman and David I. Goldberg, Flagstaff, Attorneys for Leroy D. Cropper.

Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt by Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson, Attorneys for Shad Daniel Armstrong.

James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Christopher V. Johns and James H. Kemper, Phoenix, Attorneys for Eugene Robert Tucker.

Susan A. Kettlewell, Pima County Public Defender by Rebecca A. McLean and Lori J. Lefferts, Tucson, Attorneys for Kajornsak Prasertphong.

Law Offices of Williamson & Young, P.C. by S. Jonathan Young, Tucson, Attorney for Christopher Bo Huerstel.

Robert Doyle, Phoenix, Attorney for Sherman Lee Rutledge.

Susan Sherwin, Maricopa County, Office of Legal Advocate, by Brent Graham, Phoenix, Attorneys for Christopher George Theodore Lamar.

Michael S. Reeves, Phoenix, Attorney for Michael Joe Murdaugh.

Susan Sherwin, Maricopa County, Office of Legal Advocate, Phoenix, by Brent Graham and Shughart Thomson Kilroy Goodwin Raup, P.C., by Rudolph J. Gerber, Phoenix, Attorneys for Brian Jeffrey Dann.

Susan A. Kettlewell, Pima County Public Defender by Frank P. Leto and Brian X. Metcalf, Tucson, Attorneys for Robert Joe Moody.

Susan A. Kettlewell, Pima County Public Defender by John F. Palumbo and Rebecca A. McLean, Tucson, Attorneys for Keith Royal Phillips.

Law Offices of Williamson & Young, P.C. by S. Jonathan Young, Tucson, Attorneys for Marcus LaSalle Finch.

James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Terry J. Adams and Spencer D. Heffel, Phoenix, Attorneys for John Edward Sansing.

James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Christopher V. Johns and James H. Kemper, Phoenix, Attorneys for James Cornell Harrod.

Julie Hall and Arizona Capital Representation Project by Jennifer Bedier, Tucson, Attorneys

for Darrel Peter Pandeli aka Darrel Peter Florian.

Stephen M. Johnson, Phoenix, Attorney for Scott Alan Lehr.

Thomas J. Phalen and Tara K. Allen Tempe, Phoenix, Attorneys for Arturo Anda Cañez.

Denise Young and Arizona Capital Representation Project by Jennifer Bedier, Tucson, Attorneys for Aaron Scott Hoskins.

Law Office of David Alan Darby by David Alan Darby, Tucson, Attorney for Scott Douglas Nordstrom.

McGREGOR, Vice Chief Justice.

¶ 1 This case comes to us on remand from the United States Supreme Court, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 608-609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 2443, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) (Ring II). We have jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article VI, Section 5.3.

I.

Facts and Procedural History.

¶ 2 On December 6, 1996, a jury convicted Timothy Stuart Ring of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, burglary and theft. Under Arizona law at the time of Ring's sentencing, capital sentencing followed the procedure set forth at Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-703 (Supp.1996). As required by A.R.S. section 13-703.B, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court could consider only those aggravating factors identified by statute, but could consider any possible mitigating factor.1 A.R.S. § 13-703.F-.G, amended by 2002 Ariz. Sess. Laws, 5th Spec. Sess., ch. 1, § 1. After the hearing, the court found two aggravating factors: Ring committed the murder for pecuniary gain, A.R.S. section 13-703.F.5, and "in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner," A.R.S. section 13-703.F.6. State v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267, 272 ¶ 13, 25 P.3d 1139, 1144 (2001) (Ring I). The trial court concluded that the mitigating circumstance of Ring's minimal criminal record was not "sufficiently substantial to call for leniency" and sentenced Ring to death. Id. at 273 ¶ 13, 25 P.3d at 1145; see A.R.S. § 13-703.E, amended by 2002 Ariz. Sess. Laws, 5th Spec. Sess., ch. 1, § 1.

¶ 3 Ring subsequently filed a direct appeal to this court seeking review of multiple trial and sentencing issues, including a Sixth Amendment challenge to Arizona's capital sentencing procedure. The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, Ring argued, requires a jury, rather than a judge, to find the aggravating factors set forth at section 13-703.F. Ring I, 200 Ariz. at 278 ¶ 40, 25 P.3d at 1150. This court affirmed Ring's first degree murder conviction and death sentence. Id. at 284 ¶ 65, 25 P.3d at 1156. Guided by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), we held Arizona's capital sentencing procedure did not violate the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ring I, 200 Ariz. at 279-80 ¶ 44, 25 P.3d at 1151-52.

¶ 4 Ring petitioned the United States Supreme Court to accept certiorari. The Court granted review and held that Arizona's capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, overruling Walton and applying the approach of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Ring II, 536 U.S. at 608-609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for disposition in light of Ring II. ¶ 5 At the time of the Ring II decision, thirty-one defendants sentenced to death had matters pending on direct appeal before this court. On June 27, 2002, we entered an order consolidating all thirty-one death penalty cases then on direct appeal. State v. Ring, Order No. CR-97-0428-AP (June 27, 2002).

¶ 6 All defendants in this consolidated case either pled guilty to or were convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated or felony murder. Trial judges sentenced all defendants to death under a now-superseded version of A.R.S. section 13-703, under which a judge considered aggravating and mitigating evidence. This court must now examine the impact of Ring II on the death sentences of those defendants before us. To assist the court, and after consultation with counsel for the State and the defendants, we ordered the parties to brief the issues discussed below. We reserved to each defendant the right to further brief sentencing issues, if necessary. This opinion addresses those issues raised in the consolidated appeal. The court will address each defendant's sentencing issues in a separate opinion.

II.

Historical Overview of Capital Punishment in Arizona.

¶ 7 Under...

To continue reading

Request your trial
299 cases
  • Hankerson v. State, No. A06-168.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 26 October 2006
    ...at the time of their sentences was unconstitutional, death as a punishment conceptually did not exist. State v. Ring (Ring II), 204 Ariz. 534, 65 P.3d 915, 925, 929 (2003). "Therefore, they argue[d], a resentencing proceeding under the new sentencing statutes would expose them to a more sev......
  • State v. Lovelace
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 23 July 2003
    ...reviewing court has decided that the prosecution has not proved its case that the death penalty is appropriate.'" State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534, 549, 65 P.3d 915, 930 (2003),citing Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147, 155, 106 S.Ct. 1749, 1755, 90 L.Ed.2d 123, 132 Relying primarily on Sattazahn ......
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 1 July 2005
    ...III that the failure to submit aggravating factors to the jury in capital cases was subject to harmless-error review. State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534, 65 P.3d 915, 933 (2003). 17. Defendant did, however, accept responsibility for the accidental burning, acknowledging that if he had been more v......
  • State Of Ariz. v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 18 March 2010
    ...of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value.” Our inquiry is “highly fact-intensive.” State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534, 560 ¶ 76, 65 P.3d 915 941 (2003). ¶ 91 To establish the (F)(5) aggravator, the State must establish that “pecuniary gain was a ‘motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT