State v. Spreitz

• Docket Number: CR-94-0454-AP
• Decision Date: 06 January 2025
• Parties: State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Christopher John Spreitz, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

1

State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Christopher John Spreitz, Appellant.

No. CR-94-0454-AP

Supreme Court of Arizona

January 6, 2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County The Honorable William N. SherrillNo. CR-27745

Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General, Jason D. Lewis Capital Litigation Section Chief, Jeffrey L. Sparks, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Dysart, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Attorneys for State of Arizona

David J. Euchner, Erin K. Sutherland, Deputy Public Defenders, Pima County Public Defender's Office, Tucson, Attorneys for Christopher J. Spreitz

JUSTICE MONTGOMERYauthored the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, JUSTICES BOLICK, KING, and BRUTINEL (RETIRED) joined.^[*]

OPINION

MONTGOMERY JUSTICE

¶1This Court affirmed on direct appeal Christopher Spreitz's sentence of death for the murder of Ruby Reid after conducting an independent review of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.State v. Spreitz("Spreitz I"), 190 Ariz. 129, 152(1997).After the federal district court denied Spreitz's petition for habeas corpus, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, concluding that this Court applied an unconstitutional "causal nexus" test and therefore did not properly consider evidence of Spreitz's longstanding alcohol and substance abuse as non-statutory mitigation.Spreitz v. Ryan, 916 F.3d 1262, 1276, 1281(9th Cir.2019).The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case with instructions to the district court.Id. at 1281.

¶2The State then filed a motion asking us to conduct a new independent review, which we granted.We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record and considered the mitigation evidence proffered by Spreitz at his original sentencing proceeding, including evidence of longstanding alcohol and substance abuse, and now affirm the sentence of death.

BACKGROUND

¶3 In 1994, a jury found Spreitz guilty of the first degree murder (premediated and felony murder), sexual assault, and kidnapping of Ruby Reid.Spreitz 1, 190 Ariz. at 135.Reid was last seen leaving a bar in Tucson alone and on foot at approximately 11:30 p.m. Id. at 133.Spreitz "claimed that he'picked up' Ms. Reid at a convenience store and that she voluntarily went with him, intending to 'party.'"Id. at 134.He ultimately murdered her in a desert area outside Tucson sometime between 11:30 p.m. on May 18 and 1:45 a.m. on May 19, 1989.Id. at 133-34.Reid's body was not found until several days later on May 22.Id. at 134.

Although her body was in an advanced state of decomposition and the full extent of her injuries could not be discerned, the medical examiner identified multiple injuries to Reid's body, "includ[ing]: bruising on the legs, arms, and back; bruising and abrasions on the buttocks; several broken ribs; internal bleeding; a broken jaw; several head lacerations; and a skull fracture where the skull had been 'shoved in.'"Id.Spreitz admitted in a post-Miranda interview "that he hit Ms. Reid in the head with a rock more than once to make her stop yelling."Id.

¶4 After the jury returned its guilty verdicts, the trial court conducted an aggravation-mitigation hearing and found one aggravating circumstance concerning the murder: that Spreitz murdered Reid in an especially cruel manner.Id. at 135;see alsoA.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6)(1994).As non-statutory mitigation, the court found "that [Spreitz] was raised in a 'sub-normal' home environment, that he had been emotionally immature at age twenty-two when the crime was committed but had shown emotional growth while in confinement, that he had no prior felonies, and that he was capable of rehabilitation."Spreitz 1, 190 Ariz. at 135.Following consideration of the respective aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court determined "that the especially cruel manner in which the victim died substantially outweighed all mitigating factors, whether considered separately or together" and imposed a sentence of death.Id.

¶5 On direct appeal, this Court conducted an independent review, examining the entirety of the record and reweighing the applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and found that the especially cruel aggravating circumstance of Spreitz's murder of Reid outweighed all mitigating factors in favor of leniency.Id. at 147-51.The Court therefore affirmed Spreitz's death sentence.Id. at 152.Spreitz then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Federal Supreme Court, which was denied.Spreitz v. Arizona, 523 U.S. 1027(1998).Spreitz thereafter filed a petition for post-conviction relief("PCR"), which the trial court denied.State v. Spreitz(" Spreitz II"), 202 Ariz. 1, 1-2 ¶ 3(2002).This Court affirmed the denial.Id.at 3 ¶¶ 10, 12(concluding that, although the trial court incorrectly determined ineffective assistance of counsel claims were waived for PCR review, the court's alternative substantive findings regarding ineffective assistance were correct).

¶6 In 2003, Spreitz petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for a writ of habeas corpus.Spreitz v. Ryan, 617 F.Supp.2d 887, 897(D. Ariz.2009).Finding he was not entitled to habeas relief on any of his claims, the court denied his petition in 2009.Id. at 937.In 2019, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court, determining that this Court violated Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104(1982), by "impermissibly requiring that Spreitz establish a causal connection between his longstanding substance abuse and the murder before considering and weighing the evidence as a non[-]statutory mitigating factor."Spreitz, 916 F.3d at 1273.^[1]The court remanded the case to the district court"with instructions to grant the writ with respect to Spreitz's sentence unless the state, within a reasonable period, either corrects the constitutional error in his death sentence or vacates the sentence and imposes a lesser sentence consistent with the law."Id. at 1281.

¶7The State thereafter filed a motion requesting that we undertake a new independent review and reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances.Spreitz filed a combined motion opposing the State's request and seeking a remand to the superior court for resentencing or for an evidentiary hearing.We denied Spreitz's request to remand the matter to the superior court and, consistent with State v. Styers, 227 Ariz. 186, 187 ¶ 7(2011)andState v. Hedlund, 245 Ariz. 467, 470 ¶ 4(2018), we granted the State's motion.State v. Spreitz, No. CR-94-0454-AP(Ariz.Jan. 5, 2021)(order).We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5(6) of the Arizona ConstitutionandA.R.S. §§ 13-755(A), -4031, and -4032(4).

DISCUSSION

A.Scope Of Review

¶8 In conjunction with granting the State's motion for independent review, we ordered the parties to brief "[w]hether the mitigation proffered at sentencing is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency in light of the existing aggravation."Thus, our review is limited to considering the mitigating circumstances previously presented at sentencing without requiring any causal nexus to the murder and then reweighing them against the established especially cruel aggravating circumstance.SeeStyers, 227 Ariz. at 188 ¶ 7, 189 ¶ 12.In other words, "our new independent review is focused on correcting the constitutional error identified by the Ninth Circuit."State v. Poyson("Poyson II"), 250 Ariz. 48, 51 ¶ 8(2020).Accordingly, we will not "consider evidence developed after the original proceedings as part of our independent review."Id.at 52 ¶ 12;see alsoMcKinney v. Arizona, 589 U.S. 139, 143-45(2020)(discussing reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances after remand for Eddingserror, which is not a "resentencing");Hedlund, 245 Ariz. at 471 ¶ 10(notinga defendant"should seek additional PCR if he believes the evidence he presented in the federal habeas proceedings entitles him to it").

B.Independent Review

¶9 In reviewing Spreitz's death sentence, we"independently review the trial court's findings of aggravation and mitigation and the propriety of the death sentence."§ 13-755(A);see alsoState v. Lynch, 238 Ariz. 84, 106 ¶ 79(2015)(noting that this Court"independently review[s]the trial court's findings of aggravation and mitigation and the propriety of the death sentence . . . de novo"(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613(2016).^[2]

1.Aggravating circumstance

¶10 The Ninth Circuit did not disturb the especially cruel aggravating circumstance determined by the trial court and affirmed by this Court.SeeSpreitz, 916 F.3d at 1281.Nonetheless, we set forth the evidence in the record of especial cruelty for purposes of our independent determination of the propriety of the death sentence.

¶11 Spreitz argues that the aggravating circumstance should be given less weight in our independent review.Relatedly, he argues that his "case falls squarely on the 'close call' side of the continuum; it is arguably the weakest evidence for especial cruelty out of all cases in which the factor was upheld on direct appeal.Thus, the factor should be afforded minimal weight."We do not conduct proportionality reviews.State v. Salazar,173 Ariz 399, 416(1992)(observing that "[i]n addition to the lack of any applicable constitutional provision, no statute requires or suggests proportionality reviews in death cases").Instead, we must "render a reasoned, individualized sentencing determination based on a death-eligible defendant's record, personal characteristics, and the circumstances of his crime."Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 174(2006);see alsoState v. Nordstrom, 230 Ariz....