State v. Wallace
229 Ariz. 155
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- Wallace murdered Anna (16) and Gabriel (12) after violent escalating attacks with a bat and pipe wrench, and later killed Susan; victims were his girlfriend’s children and his partner; murders occurred before August 1, 2002; state asserted heinousness/depravity via gratuitous violence (F)(6) as sole aggravator; independent review governs aggravation/mitigation under pre-2002 framework; Bocharski two-pronged test governs gratuitous violence; conviction and death sentences were previously affirmed, with a remand for new sentencing on the children’s murders; on remand in 2009, jury found the children were murdered in a particularly heinous or depraved manner; we independently review whether gratuitous violence was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved gratuitous violence beyond a reasonable doubt for Anna | Wallace; insufficiency of fatal-wurther knowledge | Wallace; no DBT for gratuitous violence | No; no beyond-reasonable-doubt knowledge |
| Whether the State proved gratuitous violence beyond a reasonable doubt for Gabriel | Wallace; uncertain knowledge of fatal blow | Wallace; rapid, escalating attacks may show gratuitous violence | No; State failed to prove gratuitous-violence beyond a reasonable doubt for Gabriel |
| Whether Wallace knew or should have known he delivered a fatal blow before continuing the attack on Anna | State argues continued violence after fatal wound shown by statements | Wallace could not be sure a fatal wound had occurred | No; not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew a fatal wound had occurred before final blows |
| Whether Wallace knew or should have known he delivered a fatal blow before continuing the attack on Gabriel | State argues heavy blows and rapid sequence imply knowledge of fatality | Wallace's motive to finish Gabriel quickly after Anna undermines knowledge | No; not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew a fatal blow had occurred before the last strikes |
| Overall governing standard for gratuitous violence under Bocharski and its narrowing in this case | Bocharski requires knowledge of fatal wounds; state must show violence beyond necessary to kill | Bocharski applies; but evidence supports some gratuitous-violence finding | Independent review finds no proof of gratuitous violence beyond a reasonable doubt; vacate death sentences for Anna and Gabriel; impose consecutive life terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Bocharski v. State, 218 Ariz. 476 (Ariz. 2008) (two-pronged test: violence beyond necessary to kill and continued violence after knew or should have known fatality)
- Wallace v. State (Wallace III), 219 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2008) (narrowing of F(6); remand for gratuitous-violence issues; independent review on remand)
- State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 (Ariz. 2002) (multiple attacks may or may not exceed violence necessary to kill depending on order; escalation case)
- State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (Ariz. 2005) (violent sequence not necessarily gratuitous under F(6) when each act aims to kill)
- State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (Ariz. 2006) (independent review framework; do not defer to jury findings on aggravation/mitigation)
- State v. Womble, 225 Ariz. 91 (Ariz. 2010) (discusses factors identifying heinousness/depravity)