State of Arizona v. Efren Medina, 306 P.3d 48

Background

In 1995 Efren Medina was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and third-degree burglary; sentenced to death; conviction and sentence were previously affirmed.
In 2003 the trial court granted post-conviction relief vacating Medina’s death sentence for ineffective assistance at sentencing; resentencing proceedings followed (2008 mistrial in penalty phase; 2009 jury returned a death sentence).
Fact summary: victim (71) was beaten, dragged into the street, and run over multiple times; evidence tied Medina to the assault and to gold paint/tire marks and victim property found on Medina’s car.
Key procedural attacks on the resentencing: denial of a second PCR and suppression motion (unsigned warrant claim); double jeopardy and Eighth Amendment challenges to retrial after a hung penalty jury; various jury-selection and juror-removal/Batson claims; Confrontation Clause challenge to autopsy report admission; ex post facto challenge to updated sentencing-evidence statute; instructional and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
The Arizona Supreme Court conducted de novo independent review of aggravators/mitigators (crime pre‑dated Aug. 1, 2002) and affirmed the death sentence, finding four aggravators and limited mitigation.

Issues

Issue	Medina's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Denial of second PCR & suppression (unsigned warrant)	Trial court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing and suppression for searches under an unsigned warrant; newly discovered witness statement about eyewitness Giles	Rule 32.9(c) procedural bar; Giles’s 2004 statements unreliable (Alzheimer's); unsigned-warrant claim waived earlier	PCR denial and suppression rulings affirmed: procedural default and lack of merit; no abuse of discretion
Double jeopardy / Eighth Amendment re: retrial after hung penalty jury (A.R.S. §13‑752(K))	Retrial after hung jury violates double jeopardy and is cruel and unusual because at least one juror effectively voted for life	Retrial after mistrial for hung jury is permitted; no acquittal occurred; scheme allows one retrial and defaults to life if second jury hangs	Statute constitutional; retrial allowed; no double jeopardy or Eighth Amendment violation
Jury selection / juror removals / Batson	Objected to counsel stipulating to juror dismissals; challenges to removal of Jurors 88 and 30; Batson claims as to strikes of Jurors 35, 71, 73	Stipulations are strategic decisions by counsel; trial court properly excused jurors for cause based on demeanor and answers; prosecutor gave race-neutral reasons	Court upheld counsel’s stipulations as strategic; removals of Jurors 88 and 30 not an abuse; Batson challenges not clearly erroneous
Confrontation Clause—admission of autopsy report and testimony	Admission of autopsy report without author testifying violated Sixth Amendment	Autopsy report nontestimonial under governing tests; testifying ME relied on report but formed independent conclusions	Autopsy report held nontestimonial; testimony by Dr. Keen did not violate Confrontation Clause

Key Cases Cited

State v. Medina, 193 Ariz. 504 (Ariz. 1999) (prior appeal affirming convictions)
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) (hung jury retrial does not violate Double Jeopardy)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (manifest necessity allows mistrial for hung jury)
McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) (individual juror consideration of mitigating evidence)
Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (jury instructions and individual consideration of mitigation)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause—testimonial statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic reports prepared for prosecution can be testimonial)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (plurality discussion of primary-purpose test for testimonial character of forensic reports)
State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60 (Ariz. 2012) (statutory construction and constitutional review of sentencing procedures)