Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Justice TIMMER,
opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 During the penalty phase of a capital trial, “the defendant and the state may present any evidence that is relevant to the determination of whether there is mitigation that is sufficiently substantial to call for le niency,” A.R.S. § 13-752(G), including any aspect of the defendant’s character, A.R.S. § 13-751(G). Today we hold that a capital defendant’s pretrial offer to plead guilty in exchange for a natural life sentence is admissible to demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility for the murder, a non-statutory mitigating circumstance.
I.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Eddings v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. DannArizona Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. WallArizona Supreme Court · 2006
- Owens v. GuidaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. WhitakerOhio Supreme Court · 2022
- State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas ValenzuelaArizona Supreme Court · 2016
- State of Arizona v. James Clayton JohnsonArizona Supreme Court · 2019
- State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian GunchesArizona Supreme Court · 2016
- Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.