Summary
The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed Joe Clarence Smith’s automatic appeal from two death sentences imposed after resentencing for separate murders. The court addressed the statutory definition of a prior violent felony aggravator, hearsay and Confrontation Clause claims involving medical-examiner testimony, voir dire limitations, rebuttal evidence, and the method of execution. It affirmed the aggravator and evidentiary rulings, found any potential confrontation error harmless, and vacated the lethal-injection-only portions of the sentences to permit Smith to choose lethal injection or lethal gas.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Smith's prior first-degree murder conviction qualified as an aggravating circumstance under former A.R.S. § 13-454(E)(2) because first-degree murder necessarily involved the use or threat of violence.
- Whether testimony by a medical examiner and a detective concerning information from a prior medical examiner constituted inadmissible hearsay or violated the Confrontation Clause.
- Whether the delay between Smith's convictions and resentencing violated state or federal speedy-trial rights.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting voir dire, interjecting during questioning, or rehabilitating prospective jurors.
- Whether rebuttal evidence concerning Smith's prior rape and murder convictions was irrelevant, cumulative, unduly prejudicial, or rendered the sentencing proceedings fundamentally unfair.
- Whether Smith's death sentences should be vacated because he was sentenced to lethal injection without the statutory opportunity to choose lethal gas.
- Whether the aggravating and mitigating evidence supported the death sentences under Arizona's independent-review requirement.
Holdings
- A prior first-degree murder conviction qualifies as an aggravating circumstance under former A.R.S. § 13-454(E)(2) because first-degree murder, including murder by surreptitious poisoning, necessarily involves the use of force.
- The testifying medical examiner's testimony was admissible because he independently formed his opinions from materials reasonably relied upon by medical examiners and did not act as a conduit for the prior examiner's opinions.
- The detective's use of the autopsy report and testimony concerning the medical examiner's contemporaneous statements satisfied applicable hearsay exceptions; any Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting broad or precommitment-oriented voir dire questions, asking jurors whether they would follow the law, or clarifying questions and answers.
- The rebuttal evidence concerning prior rapes and murder was relevant to Smith's mental-health mitigation and, given the trial court's limits, did not violate due process or render the sentencing proceedings fundamentally unfair.
- Smith established no speedy-trial violation because time spent pursuing appellate and collateral review was not counted as part of the relevant delay, and Smith conceded no violation under the resulting calculation.
- The aggravating circumstances were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the mitigation was not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency; the death sentences therefore were affirmed.
Key quotations
“We hold that even surreptitious poisoning involves the use of force.” (159 P.3d at 537)
“First-degree murder, as defined in A.R.S § 13-452, therefore cannot be committed without the use of force, whether that force be exerted by the defendant or by some instrumentality that the defendant has put to this use.” (159 P.3d at 537)
“A testifying expert, however, may not act as a "conduit for another non-testifying expert's opinion."” (159 P.3d at 539)
“Therefore, absent evidence that the state deliberately delayed the proceedings and the defendant was prejudiced by the delay, we do not count the time on appeal.” (159 P.3d at 543)
“We therefore affirm the death sentences.” (159 P.3d at 545)
Factual background
Smith was convicted of murdering Neva Lee and pleaded guilty to murdering Sandy Spencer, whose bodies were found in desert locations in 1976. Both victims had been bound and died from asphyxiation after their noses and mouths were obstructed with soil; both also suffered multiple stab or puncture wounds. After federal habeas relief based on ineffective assistance at resentencing, Smith received separate 2004 jury sentencing proceedings, and both juries found three aggravating factors and imposed death sentences.
Procedural history
Smith was convicted of one first-degree murder after trial and pleaded guilty to the other in 1977; both convictions resulted in death sentences. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing, and later affirmed the renewed death sentences. Federal habeas proceedings resulted in a Ninth Circuit determination that counsel was ineffective at resentencing and a remand for new sentencing proceedings. In 2004, juries again found aggravating circumstances and imposed death sentences for both murders. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the sentences as modified to permit Smith to choose lethal injection or lethal gas.
Remand instructions
The lethal-injection portions of the sentences were vacated and Smith was ordered to be permitted to choose lethal injection or lethal gas at least twenty days before the execution date; if he failed to choose, execution would be by lethal injection.