426 P.3d 1204
Ariz.2018Background
- In March 1991 James Erin McKinney and his half-brother committed two home burglaries that resulted in the murders of Christine Mertens and Jim McClain; McKinney was convicted of first-degree murder for both killings.
- At sentencing the trial court found multiple aggravators, including pecuniary-gain and heinous/cruel/depraved murder, and identified mitigating evidence of severe childhood abuse/neglect and PTSD.
- The trial court imposed death sentences for both murders; this Court affirmed on independent review in 1996.
- On federal habeas review, the Ninth Circuit (en banc) held this Court had applied an unconstitutional “causal nexus” requirement to mitigation (McKinney v. Ryan) and directed relief unless the State corrected the error.
- The State requested a new state independent review (rather than a new jury sentencing) because McKinney’s case became final before Ring v. Arizona; this Court conducted that independent review.
- After reweighing aggravation and mitigation without a causal-nexus requirement, the Court again affirmed both death sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKinney is entitled to a new jury sentencing trial under Ring | McKinney: Ring requires jury determination of aggravators, so he needs a new sentencing jury | State: McKinney’s case was final before Ring; independent review remains appropriate | Held: Independent review appropriate; Ring does not entitle McKinney to a new jury because his case was final pre‑Ring |
| Whether this Court must consider mitigation without requiring causal nexus to the crime | McKinney: Mitigation must be considered regardless of causal connection to offense | State: Mitigation can be considered but causal relation may affect weight | Held: Court must consider all mitigation (no causal‑nexus requirement); lack of nexus may reduce weight but cannot bar consideration |
| Whether McKinney’s proffered mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency | McKinney: Childhood abuse, neglect, PTSD, youth, and residual doubt warrant leniency | State: Mitigation bears little relation to the murders and is outweighed by strong aggravators | Held: Mitigation given minimal weight; not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency |
| Whether the aggravating factors support death sentences for both murders | State: Multiple, strong aggravators (pecuniary gain; multiple homicides; especially cruel manner) justify death | McKinney: Mitigation could undermine the weight of aggravators | Held: Aggravators (F)(5) pecuniary gain and (F)(6) heinousness for Mertens, and (F)(1) multiple homicides plus (F)(5) for McClain carry great/extraordinary weight; death sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McKinney, 185 Ariz. 567 (1996) (this Court’s original independent review affirming convictions and death sentences)
- McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. en banc 2015) (federal court held this Court applied an unconstitutional causal‑nexus test to mitigation)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (holding that a jury must find aggravating factors that expose a defendant to the death penalty)
- State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (requirement to consider all relevant mitigation; causal connection may affect weight)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer must consider all relevant mitigating evidence)
- State v. Styers, 227 Ariz. 186 (2011) (cases final before Ring are not entitled to Ring‑based resentencing)