State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom
230 Ariz. 110
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- Nordstrom was sentenced to death for the 1996 murders of Hardman and Noel after resentencing following Ring v. Arizona.
- At the 2009 resentencing, the State introduced evidence of four prior felony murders and other crimes; Nordstrom did not present mitigation.
- The trial court admitted the felony-murder evidence and Nordstrom’s parole status as relevant to leniency; Nordstrom challenged several evidentiary rulings.
- Nordstrom argued violations of due process, double jeopardy, and a lack of individualized sentencing during penalty-phase proceedings.
- The Court independently reviews the death sentences because Nordstrom’s offenses occurred before August 1, 2002.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Penalty-phase evidentiary scope | Nordstrom challenged admission of four felony murders to negate leniency. | State argues §13-752(G) allows any relevant evidence at penalty phase. | Admission of felony murders upheld; relevant and not unduly prejudicial. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy | Pretrial misconduct warrants dismissal or preclusion of death penalty. | Remand did not violate double jeopardy; issues proceed via Rule 32. | Double jeopardy not violated; claims addressed under Rule 32, not dismissed here. |
| Rule 24.2 timing for vacating judgment | Newly discovered misconduct warrants vacating convictions. | Judgment on convictions was entered earlier; Rule 24.2 timing expired. | Rule 24.2 motion untimely; convictions not vacated on that basis. |
| Due process and adicion of aggravators | Invoking Rule 13.5(c) to challenge legal sufficiency of aggravators. | Convictions valid on direct appeal; collateral attacks not allowed on remand. | Rule 13.5 satisfied; convictions valid and aggravators properly supported. |
| Contemporaneous-conviction basis for (F)(1) aggravator | Contemporaneous convictions could not support (F)(1) without legislative intent. | Contemporaneous convictions may support (F)(1) if entered before sentencing. | Contemporaneous convictions may support (F)(1); amendment of (F)(2) does not exclude (F)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lehr, 227 Ariz. 140 (Ariz. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; generalized governing framework)
- State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (Ariz. 2006) (de novo review for constitutional and statutory interpretation)
- State v. Prince, 226 Ariz. 516 (Ariz. 2011) (broad allowance of evidence at penalty phase to determine mitigation)
- Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (U.S. 2006) (requires reasoned, individualized capital-sentencing determinations)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1976) (guidepost for constitutionality of death-penalty system)
- State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 2006) (no revisit of guilt-phase verdict during aggravation/penalty phases)
- State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 (Ariz. 2003) (post-Ring framework for resentencing and aggravation findings)
- State v. Gretzler II, 135 Ariz. 42 (Ariz. 1983) (prior convictions support aggravating factors when valid on face)