Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 2005No. CV-05-0155-PRPublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BERCH, Vice Chief Justice.

¶ 1 This case concerns the propriety of two jury instructions relating to sentencing in a capital case. The prosecutor requested that the jury be instructed at the close of the penalty phase of the trial that the defendant bears the affirmative burden to prove that mitigation is “sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.” The second instruction advised the jurors to sentence the defendant to life in prison if they had “a doubt” whether a death sentence was appropriate. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that neither instruction is proper.

I. FACTS…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Walton v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. State v. GretzlerArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. WatsonArizona Supreme Court · 1978
  5. State v. GulbrandsonArizona Supreme Court · 1995

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. State v. EllisonArizona Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State v. RoqueArizona Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State v. DannArizona Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State v. TuckerArizona Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. BocharskiArizona Supreme Court · 2008

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API