State v. Prince, 226 Ariz. 516

Prince was convicted of first degree murder of Cassandra and attempted first degree murder of Christine after a domestic dispute.
A prior capital-sentencing judgment was remanded for resentencing under Ring v. Arizona, with aggravators found in the resentencing proceeding.
Two aggravating factors were found: especially cruel murder (F6) and Cassandra was under 15 when killed (F9).
During a second penalty-phase, the statute § 13-752(K) required a new jury if the first penalty-phase jury deadlocked, and the new jury could not retry guilt or the previously found aggravators.
Prince challenged the second penalty-phase process as ex post facto and vague, and argued trifurcated proceedings, juror exclusion, evidentiary issues, and victim-impact testimony; the court upheld the death sentence.
Independent review affirmed the death sentence given the strength of aggravation and weak mitigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex post facto violation from § 13-752(K)	Prince argues second jury retrying death sentence expands liability beyond 1990 law.	State contends Cropper controls; no new liability; not ex post facto.	No ex post facto violation; second penalty phase permissible.
Vagueness of § 13-752(K) governing second penalty phase	Prince claims lack of guidance on admissibility of aggravation evidence at second phase.	Statutes broadly govern penalty-phase evidence by relevance to mitigation; admissibility rules apply.	Statutes adequately guide admissibility; no void-for-vagueness error.
Constitutionality of trifurcated jury proceeding	Tri-phase process may deprive defendant of cohesive sentencing.	Different juries for guilt/aggravation/penalty are permissible; no Caldwell violation.	Tri-furcated proceeding constitutional; juries properly instructed.
Victim impact evidence and Caldwell analysis	Victim impact and statements risk improper prejudice and Caldwell violation.	Victim impact evidence is allowed under Payne; readings by advocates do not violate confrontation or Caldwell.	Victim impact evidence and related readings did not violate Caldwell or due process; penalty upheld.

State v. Cropper, 223 Ariz. 522 (2010) (ex post facto challenges to second penalty-phase procedure)
State v. Moore, 222 Ariz. 1 (2009) (upholding bifurcated aggravation/penalty phases)
State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (2006) (due process and mitigation guidance in penalty phase)
State v. Chappell, 225 Ariz. 229 (2010) (special cruelty standard and time considerations)
Marsh v. Kansas, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) (requires reasoned, individualized sentencing; death penalty discretion)
State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1 (2010) (guidance on narrowing instructions for especial cruelty)
State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298 (2007) (limiting or guiding introduction of psychological evidence)
State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476 (2008) (relevant discussion of mitigating weight and childhood factors)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (standard for evaluating mitigating evidence and weight)