Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch

A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(11-12)

A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(11) - INTENT TO FURTHER OBJECTIVES OF A CRIMINAL GANG OR SYNDICATE

A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(11) provides that it shall be an aggravating circumstance where "the defendant committed the offense with the intent to promote, further or assist the objectives of a criminal street gang or criminal syndicate or to join a criminal street gang or criminal syndicate."

History:  The Arizona Legislature amended the capital sentencing statute in 2005 to include this aggravating circumstance.  The effective date was August 12, 2005.

No case has reviewed this factor to date.


A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(12) - INTENT TO INTERFERE OR RETALIATE FOR COOPERATION WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING

A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(12) provides that it shall be an aggravating circumstance where "the defendant committed the offense to prevent a person’s cooperation with an official law enforcement investigation, to prevent a person’s testimony in a court proceeding, in retaliation for a person’s cooperation with an official law enforcement investigation or in retaliation for a person’s testimony in a court proceeding."

History:  The Arizona Legislature amended the capital sentencing statute in 2005 to include this aggravating circumstance.  The effective date was August 12, 2005

State v. (William Craig) Miller, --- P.3d ---, 2013 WL 6842566 (December 27, 2013)
The “witness elimination” factor was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Testimony established that Defendant stated several times that he wanted to kill two of the victims because they had cooperated with the police. Further, evidence established that he started planning the murders soon after the arson indictment, which relied heavily upon the cooperation of the two victims. “[Defendant’s] statements and the timing of his plans provided sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that [Defendant] killed [two of the victims] to prevent them from cooperating with the police or testifying against him, or to retaliate for their cooperation with the police.”

Double counting: (F)8) and (F)(12). Defendant claimed that the jury used the victim’s cooperation with the police to establish both the (F)(12) and the (F)(8) aggravating factors. The Supreme Court held that double-counting did not occur. The “crux of the [(F)(8)] aggravator is that multiple murders occurred”; the motivation for the murders must be related but the nature of the motivation is not important.The (F)(12) factor is established only when the motive is to eliminate witnesses; the fact that more than one murder was committed is irrelevant.

 


Continue to: A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(13) - COLD, CALCULATED MANNER