State v. Bocharski case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
218 Ariz. 476,
CASE SYNOPSIS: On remand, the Superior
Court in Yavapai County (Arizona), determined that the mitigation was
not sufficient substantial to warrant leniency and that the death
penalty against defendant was appropriate after he was convicted of
first-degree felony murder and burglary in the first degree. Appeal
was automatic.
FACTS: A jury found defendant guilty of first-degree felony murder and burglary in the first degree and he was sentenced to death. His death sentence was reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing. On remand, a new jury found that the death penalty was appropriate and appeal to the supreme court was automatic.
ANALYSIS:
The supreme court reduced defendant's sentence from death to natural life, stating that it could not be concluded from the evidence that defendant intentionally inflicted violence after he knew or should have known of a fatal occurrence. The State therefore did not establish gratuitous violence beyond a reasonable doubt. The aggravation, absent the Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(6) (Supp. 2007) aggravator, was not particularly strong. The State established only the § 13-703(F)(6) aggravator, age of the victim, beyond a reasonable doubt. The mitigation evidence, in contrast, was substantial. Given the limited aggravation evidence and the strong mitigation evidence, the supreme court doubted whether death was warranted.
CONCLUSION: The supreme court reduced defendant's sentence from death to natural life.
FACTS: A jury found defendant guilty of first-degree felony murder and burglary in the first degree and he was sentenced to death. His death sentence was reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing. On remand, a new jury found that the death penalty was appropriate and appeal to the supreme court was automatic.
ANALYSIS:
The supreme court reduced defendant's sentence from death to natural life, stating that it could not be concluded from the evidence that defendant intentionally inflicted violence after he knew or should have known of a fatal occurrence. The State therefore did not establish gratuitous violence beyond a reasonable doubt. The aggravation, absent the Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(6) (Supp. 2007) aggravator, was not particularly strong. The State established only the § 13-703(F)(6) aggravator, age of the victim, beyond a reasonable doubt. The mitigation evidence, in contrast, was substantial. Given the limited aggravation evidence and the strong mitigation evidence, the supreme court doubted whether death was warranted.
CONCLUSION: The supreme court reduced defendant's sentence from death to natural life.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment