arizona
rumsey
argued
april
decided
may
arizona
statutory
capital
sentencing
scheme
provides
murder
conviction
trial
judge
jury
must
conduct
separate
sentencing
hearing
determine
whether
death
appropriate
sentence
judge
must
choose
two
options
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
years
death
sentence
may
imposed
unless
least
one
statutory
aggravating
circumstance
present
must
imposed
one
aggravating
circumstance
mitigating
circumstance
sufficiently
substantial
call
leniency
judge
must
make
findings
respect
statutory
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
sentencing
hearing
involves
submission
evidence
presentation
argument
state
burden
proving
existence
aggravating
circumstances
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
convicted
respondent
armed
robbery
murder
trial
judge
conducted
required
sentencing
hearing
ultimately
found
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
present
ruled
contrary
state
contention
statutory
aggravating
circumstance
relating
killing
pecuniary
gain
applied
murders
hire
apply
murders
committed
order
obtain
money
murders
committed
robbery
accordingly
respondent
sentenced
murder
conviction
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
years
also
sentenced
years
imprisonment
armed
robbery
sentences
run
consecutively
respondent
appealed
arizona
challenging
imposition
consecutive
sentences
state
filed
contending
trial
committed
error
law
interpreting
pecuniary
gain
aggravating
circumstance
apply
contract
killings
rejecting
respondent
challenge
sentence
ruling
state
set
aside
life
sentence
remanded
redetermination
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
resentencing
murder
conviction
remand
trial
held
new
sentencing
hearing
rejected
respondent
argument
imposing
death
penalty
violate
bullington
missouri
found
pecuniary
gain
aggravating
circumstance
present
mitigating
circumstance
sufficient
call
leniency
sentenced
respondent
death
respondent
mandatory
appeal
arizona
held
bullington
respondent
death
sentence
violated
double
jeopardy
clause
fifth
amendment
ordered
sentence
reduced
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
years
held
double
jeopardy
clause
prohibits
arizona
sentencing
respondent
death
case
controlled
bullington
held
double
jeopardy
clause
applied
missouri
capital
sentencing
proceeding
barring
imposition
death
penalty
upon
reconviction
initial
conviction
set
aside
appeal
resulted
rejection
death
sentence
proceeding
comparable
trial
issue
guilt
initial
sentence
life
imprisonment
effect
acquitted
defendant
death
penalty
capital
sentencing
proceeding
arizona
shares
characteristics
missouri
proceeding
made
resemble
trial
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
thus
respondent
initial
life
sentence
constitutes
acquittal
death
penalty
state
sentence
respondent
death
conviction
murder
although
trial
initially
relied
misconstruction
statute
defining
pecuniary
gain
aggravating
circumstance
reliance
error
law
change
double
jeopardy
effects
judgment
amounts
acquittal
merits
issue
sentencing
proceeding
whether
death
appropriate
punishment
respondent
offense
wilson
distinguished
pp
affirmed
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
marshall
blackmun
powell
stevens
joined
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
white
joined
post
william
schafer
iii
argued
cause
petitioner
brief
robert
corbin
attorney
general
arizona
james
rummage
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
timothy
ford
jack
greenberg
james
nabrit
iii
anthony
amsterdam
filed
brief
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
double
jeopardy
clause
prohibits
state
arizona
sentencing
respondent
death
life
sentence
initially
received
set
aside
appeal
agree
arizona
bullington
missouri
squarely
controls
disposition
case
interpretation
double
jeopardy
clause
adopted
decision
imposition
death
penalty
respondent
unconstitutional
arizona
jury
convicted
respondent
armed
robbery
first
degree
murder
trial
judge
jury
conducted
separate
sentencing
hearing
determine
according
statutory
scheme
considering
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
rev
stat
ann
supp
whether
death
appropriate
sentence
murder
conviction
petitioner
relying
entirely
evidence
presented
trial
argued
three
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
present
respondent
presenting
one
witness
countered
aggravating
circumstances
present
several
mitigating
circumstances
one
principal
points
contention
concerned
scope
rev
stat
ann
supp
defines
aggravating
circumstance
murder
commission
consideration
receipt
expectation
receipt
anything
pecuniary
value
respondent
argued
provision
applies
murders
hire
whereas
petitioner
argued
applies
murders
committed
order
obtain
money
several
days
sentencing
hearing
trial
judge
imposes
sentence
without
assistance
jury
arizona
scheme
returned
special
verdict
setting
forth
findings
statutory
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
judge
found
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
present
app
particular
respect
aggravating
circumstance
defined
trial
judge
found
defendant
commit
offense
consideration
receipt
expectation
receipt
anything
pecuniary
value
regard
agree
state
interpretation
state
madsen
filed
march
believes
read
together
intended
apply
killing
situation
robbery
burglary
etc
app
respondent
appealed
judgment
arizona
arguing
imposition
consecutive
sentences
case
violated
federal
state
law
arizona
law
rev
stat
ann
respondent
appeal
permitted
petitioner
file
life
sentence
petitioner
contended
trial
committed
error
law
interpreting
pecuniary
gain
aggravating
circumstance
apply
contract
killings
state
rejected
respondent
challenge
sentence
agreed
petitioner
however
trial
misinterpreted
theft
committed
course
murder
constitute
aggravating
circumstance
section
trial
misinterpretation
state
concluded
sentence
life
imprisonment
previously
imposed
set
aside
matter
remanded
redetermination
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
resentencing
sentence
armed
robbery
left
undisturbed
remand
trial
held
new
sentencing
hearing
neither
petitioner
respondent
presented
new
evidence
although
opportunity
heard
argument
however
lawfulness
imposing
death
penalty
resentencing
presence
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
petitioner
argued
neither
federal
state
law
barred
sentencing
respondent
death
petitioner
also
urged
find
three
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
identified
first
sentencing
largely
repeating
arguments
made
first
proceeding
app
respondent
argued
imposing
death
penalty
violate
bullington
missouri
north
carolina
pearce
arizona
rule
criminal
procedure
implements
resentencing
principles
pearce
case
respect
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
respondent
effectively
conceded
presence
pecuniary
gain
aggravating
circumstance
thinking
issue
foreclosed
statement
opinion
state
see
app
instant
case
hope
financial
gain
cause
murder
respondent
contended
aggravating
circumstance
outweighed
statutory
mitigating
circumstance
among
five
enumerated
death
sentencing
statute
according
testimony
jury
foreperson
conviction
first
degree
murder
based
instruction
premeditation
instruction
thus
respondent
contended
regard
theft
aggravating
circumstance
using
elevate
second
degree
murder
first
form
double
counting
app
several
days
hearing
trial
returned
special
verdict
reciting
findings
statutory
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
one
nonstatutory
mitigating
circumstance
urged
respondent
found
present
one
seven
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
namely
concerning
commission
murder
pecuniary
gain
also
found
none
five
statutory
mitigating
circumstances
present
fact
murder
conviction
felony
murder
mitigating
circumstance
sufficiently
substantial
call
leniency
app
accordingly
required
arizona
law
rev
stat
ann
supp
sentenced
respondent
death
mandatory
appeal
arizona
respondent
argued
imposition
death
sentence
resentencing
effectively
acquitted
death
initial
sentencing
violated
double
jeopardy
clause
fifth
amendment
applied
fourteenth
amendment
benton
maryland
also
argued
death
sentence
violated
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
interpreted
north
carolina
pearce
supra
arizona
addressed
first
argument
concluded
decision
bullington
missouri
supra
respondent
sentence
violated
constitutional
prohibition
double
jeopardy
therefore
ordered
respondent
sentence
first
degree
murder
reduced
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
years
state
arizona
filed
petition
writ
certiorari
granted
certiorari
affirm
ii
bullington
missouri
held
double
jeopardy
clause
applies
missouri
capital
sentencing
proceeding
thus
bars
imposition
death
penalty
upon
reconviction
initial
conviction
set
aside
appeal
resulted
rejection
death
sentence
identified
several
characteristics
missouri
sentencing
proceeding
make
comparable
trial
double
jeopardy
purposes
discretion
sentencer
jury
missouri
restricted
precisely
two
options
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
release
years
addition
sentencer
make
decision
guided
substantive
standards
based
evidence
introduced
separate
proceeding
formally
resembles
trial
finally
prosecution
prove
certain
statutorily
defined
facts
beyond
reasonable
doubt
order
support
sentence
death
reasons
missouri
sentencer
imposes
sentence
life
imprisonment
capital
sentencing
proceeding
determined
prosecution
failed
prove
case
believed
anxiety
ordeal
suffered
defendant
missouri
capital
sentencing
proceeding
equal
suffered
trial
issue
guilt
concluded
double
jeopardy
clause
prohibits
state
resentencing
defendant
death
sentencer
effect
acquitted
defendant
penalty
capital
sentencing
proceeding
arizona
shares
characteristics
missouri
proceeding
make
resemble
trial
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
sentencer
trial
judge
arizona
required
choose
two
options
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
years
sentencer
must
make
decision
guided
detailed
statutory
standards
defining
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
particular
death
may
imposed
unless
least
one
aggravating
circumstance
found
whereas
death
must
imposed
one
aggravating
circumstance
mitigating
circumstance
sufficiently
substantial
call
leniency
sentencer
must
make
findings
respect
statutory
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
sentencing
hearing
involves
submission
evidence
presentation
argument
usual
rules
evidence
govern
admission
evidence
aggravating
circumstances
state
must
prove
existence
aggravating
circumstances
beyond
reasonable
doubt
see
rev
stat
ann
supp
arizona
held
characteristics
make
arizona
capital
sentencing
proceeding
indistinguishable
double
jeopardy
purposes
capital
sentencing
proceeding
missouri
sentencer
arizona
trial
judge
rather
jury
render
sentencing
proceeding
less
like
trial
see
morrison
double
jeopardy
clause
treats
bench
jury
trials
alike
availability
appellate
review
including
reweighing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
make
appellate
process
part
single
continuing
sentencing
proceeding
arizona
noted
role
strictly
appellate
trial
indeed
appeal
need
taken
life
imprisonment
imposed
appellate
reweighing
work
defendant
advantage
short
sentence
imposed
completed
arizona
capital
sentencing
hearing
judgment
like
sentence
issue
bullington
missouri
held
triggers
protections
double
jeopardy
clause
double
jeopardy
principle
relevant
respondent
case
invoked
bullington
acquittal
merits
sole
decisionmaker
proceeding
final
bars
retrial
charge
application
bullington
principle
renders
respondent
death
sentence
violation
double
jeopardy
clause
respondent
initial
sentence
life
imprisonment
undoubtedly
acquittal
merits
central
issue
proceeding
whether
death
appropriate
punishment
respondent
offense
trial
entered
findings
denying
existence
seven
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
required
state
law
entered
judgment
respondent
favor
issue
death
judgment
based
findings
sufficient
establish
legal
entitlement
life
sentence
amounts
acquittal
merits
bars
retrial
appropriateness
death
penalty
making
findings
trial
relied
misconstruction
statute
defining
pecuniary
gain
aggravating
circumstance
reliance
error
law
however
change
double
jeopardy
effects
judgment
amounts
acquittal
merits
fact
acquittal
may
result
erroneous
evidentiary
rulings
erroneous
interpretations
governing
legal
principles
affects
accuracy
determination
alter
essential
character
scott
quoting
brennan
dissenting
thus
cases
hold
acquittal
merits
bars
retrial
even
based
legal
error
wilson
held
prosecution
appeal
judgment
acquittal
entered
trial
judge
jury
returned
verdict
guilty
holding
application
case
double
jeopardy
problem
presented
wilson
appellate
upon
reviewing
asserted
legal
errors
trial
judge
simply
order
jury
guilty
verdict
reinstated
new
factfinding
necessary
defendant
therefore
twice
placed
jeopardy
contrast
respondent
initial
capital
sentencing
one
decisionmaker
one
set
findings
fact
favorable
respondent
trial
acquitted
respondent
death
penalty
verdict
guilty
appellate
reinstate
arizona
accordingly
remanded
redetermination
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
resentencing
second
sentencing
proceeding
similar
first
whereas
defendant
wilson
subjected
second
trial
acquittal
first
precisely
happened
respondent
iii
bullington
missouri
held
double
jeopardy
protections
attach
missouri
capital
sentencing
proceeding
proceeding
like
trial
capital
sentencing
proceeding
arizona
indistinguishable
double
jeopardy
purposes
proceeding
missouri
bullington
therefore
respondent
initial
sentence
life
imprisonment
constitutes
acquittal
death
penalty
state
arizona
sentence
respondent
death
conviction
first
degree
murder
petitioner
invited
overrule
bullington
decided
three
years
ago
decline
invitation
although
adherence
precedent
rigidly
required
constitutional
cases
departure
doctrine
stare
decisis
demands
special
justification
see
swift
wickham
smith
allwright
petitioner
suggested
reason
sufficient
warrant
taking
exceptional
action
overruling
bullington
judgment
arizona
therefore
affirmed
today
affirms
decision
arizona
vacating
death
sentence
imposed
respondent
murder
committed
course
armed
robbery
applying
interpretation
given
double
jeopardy
clause
bare
majority
bullington
missouri
concludes
case
first
sentencing
also
amounted
implied
acquittal
respondent
eligibility
death
penalty
continue
believe
bullington
wrongly
decided
reasons
expressed
justice
powell
dissent
case
even
apart
views
believe
reasoning
underlying
bullington
applies
remand
resentencing
correct
legal
error
accordingly
dissent
central
premise
holding
today
trial
first
finding
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
therefore
life
sentence
imposed
amounted
implied
acquittal
merits
respondent
eligibility
death
sentence
thereby
barring
possibility
enhanced
sentence
upon
resentencing
virtue
double
jeopardy
clause
continued
reliance
implied
acquittal
rationale
bullington
simply
inapt
unlike
jury
decision
bullington
jury
broad
discretion
decide
whether
capital
punishment
appropriate
trial
judge
discretion
case
carefully
confined
directed
determining
whether
certain
specified
aggravating
factors
existed
compare
mo
rev
stat
rev
stat
ann
supp
obvious
record
state
established
first
hearing
respondent
murdered
victim
course
armed
robbery
fact
undisputed
sentencing
sense
meaningfully
argued
state
failed
prove
case
existence
least
one
aggravating
circumstance
hard
see
implied
acquittal
statutory
aggravating
circumstance
record
explicitly
establishes
factual
basis
aggravating
circumstance
existed
trial
judge
erroneous
construction
governing
state
law
judge
required
impose
death
penalty
matter
state
law
arizona
simply
corrected
erroneous
sentence
without
remanding
argument
bullington
prevent
imposition
death
sentence
much
made
clear
decision
wilson
stating
rule
appellate
order
reversing
conviction
subject
review
without
subjecting
defendant
double
jeopardy
wrote
difficult
see
rule
different
simply
defendant
gotten
favorable
postverdict
ruling
law
district
judge
rather
appeals
district
judge
relied
degree
evidence
presented
trial
making
ruling
although
review
ruling
law
discharging
defendant
obviously
enhances
likelihood
conviction
subjects
continuing
expense
anxiety
defendant
legitimate
claim
benefit
error
law
error
corrected
without
subjecting
second
trial
second
trier
fact