Amended on 03/02/2021

Upholding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-753(K)(1) in light of the recent United States Supreme Court opinions Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (“Moore I”), and Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (2019) (“Moore II”).  Moore I and Moore II did not eliminate § 13-753(K)(1)’s requirements that the trial court: (1) conduct an overall assessment, as set forth in State v. Grell, 212 Ariz. 516, 529 ¶ 62 (2006), to determine if the defendant has a deficit in any life-skill category; and (2) if a deficit exists, determine whether it affects the defendant’s ability to meet “the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of defendant’s age and cultural group.” 

Amended on 04/02/2020.

Amended on 03/16/2020

Amended by Order on 04/13/2020

Upholding the constitutionality of A.RS. § 13-751(F)(13), which provides as an aggravating circumstance in a capital case that “[t]he offense was committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification”,  against the challenge that it is overly vague and provides inadequate guidance, in light of further narrowing instructions.

Upholding the constitutionality of A.RS. § 13-751(F)(6) (renumbered A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(4)), which provides as an aggravating circumstance in a capital case that "the defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner", against the challenge that it is overly vague and provides inadequate guidance, in light of further narrowing instructions, and that any guidance cannot be constitutionally applied by a jury, rather than a judge.

Affirming the holding of State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018), that the Arizona death penalty statutory scheme sufficiently narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty in accordance with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Upholding the constitutionality of A.RS. § 13-752(G), which governs the presentation of mitigation evidence at the penalty phase in a capital case, against the challenge that it is unconstitutional because it fails to provide a process to allow jurors to consider mitigating evidence when a defendant waives his right to present such evidence.

Amended on 01/24/2020

Amended per ASC Order filed February 21, 2020 

PLEASE NOTE: On February 21, 2020 an Order was filed  amending the following: On page 9, paragraph 26:

We vacate the court of appeals’ opinion, except paragraph 57-60, and affirm the family court’s order directing donation of the embryos.