*1 hеrein; participate do DURRANT tice Judge K.L. McIFF sat.
District
STATE ARGUELLES,
Roberto Y. Defendant Appellant.
Nos. 970366.
Supreme Court of Utah. 14, 2003.
Jan.
Rehearing Denied Jan.
735
737 *6 (“Arguelles”),
Roberto Y. pled guilty aggravated to four counts of murder. During penalty phase, Arguelles waived counsel, acknowledged that he appropriate felt death was the him, presented punishment for limited evidence. court sentenced defendant death. before Now us man- datory statutory appeal, the court assistant1 claims on behalf that the death should sentence be overturned.
BACKGROUND April On confessed killing Bond, kidnapping Margo Ste- Blundell, Martinez, phanie Tuesday Lisa later, days Roberts. Three charged aggravated with four counts of murder. attorneys Two from the Salt Lake (“LDA”) Legal Defenders Association were appointed Arguelles. represent Sep- On disqualified tember LDA magistrate potential because actual conflicts of interest. In January magistrate ap- (“Brass”),
pointed Edward Brass Patrick (“Anderson”), Anderson and Clark Donald- (“Donaldson”) represent Arguelles. son later, Three months before the magistrate, Arguelles waived his Brass, Anderson, accepted counsel *7 standby Donaldson counsel. In the same hearing, Arguelles right his pre- waived to a liminary hearing attempted plead magistrate guilty. not-guilty entered behalf, Arguelles’s pleas on then bound him over the district court. Gen., Shurtleff, Att’y L. Mark Thomas ¶ Arguelles rep- reaffirmed his desire to Brunker, Gen., Att’y City, Asst. Salt Lake for hearing resent himself in a before the district plaintiff. court, pled guilty ag- then to each count of Brass, City, attorney K. Edward Lake Salt gravated Arguelles explicitly murder. also for court. the jury his to a trial for the waived sen- tencing phase. During three-day penalty the followed, proceeding present- which the State AMENDED OPINION offenses, Arguelles’s prior ed evidence of de- DURHAM, Chief Justice: murders, charged of tails and the testi- ¶ mony family presents 1 This case the unusual of situa- the victims’ members. As evidence, capital mitigating Arguelles presented tion wherein a defendant seeks the Glover, defendant, testimony Jenny death for his crimes. The in- corrections statute, sentence, By capital oppose this all does nоt court reviews cases his and since he has counsel, which a in death sentence is reached. Utah waived his the court assistant (2001). Arguelles appointed § argue appeal. Ann. Since case Code 76-3-207 on officer, again I’ll represent new counsel. vestigator peace testified this who help Arguelles’s myself and his if regarding confession it comes that.” Arguelles locating in the victims’ bodies. magistrate 7 The determined that examinations and presented also compelling did establish a need for State blackouts, describing history of reports testimony about the voluntariness Steele’s loss, Af- disorders. memory associative videotaped Arguelles’s confessions because weighing aggravating ter present at the there were other witnesses evidence, trial court sentenced confession, evidence would Steele’s to death. necessary to preserve and not be cumulative ap- August pending automatic 5 In action. The trial court also cause of court, Arguelles attempted sui- peal to this necessary not a determined that Johnson was prison. The State moved to cide in while prior establishing Arguelles’s convic- party to the district court case remanded tion, knowledge aggra- but that Johnson’s evidentiary for an vating brought out factors to be proceed. competency to Conflict mental sentencing phase of the trial created a con- Bradshaw and Ken Brown were counsel Jim flict of interest could not hearing. The court appointed for the district waive. Af- Arguelles competent proceed. found not wish ter indicated that did determining 8 In that a conflict of inter- sentence, appointed Brass appeal Johnson, as to the trial court est existed statutorily handle as a assistant to testimony potential be found that his would required greater de- appeal. We discuss necessary. compelling and The testi- both surrounding tail the facts each below mony compelling “Mr. because Johnson’s assistant raised issues with the defendant numerous conversаtions appeal. directly aggravating impact on the issue of presentation those
circumstances and the jury. has BEFORE THE circumstances to defense I. MAGISTRATE Mr. conceded that Johnson information magis- Early proceedings, aggravating circum- that could address the represent appointed trate the LDA to testimo- stances.” The found moved to uelles. June (1) necessary ny was it was: adverse because magistrate inquire have the into the LDA’s (2) (3) admissible; defendant; and, to the ar- potential conflicts interest. The State presented any “the has not alterna- defense gued employees, Steele that two LDA Robert to defeat the claim that tive sources State’s (“Steele”) (“Johnson”), Virgil Johnson only for Mr. is the source available Johnson trial, necessary would witnesses to further this information.” The trial court Steele, creating interest. an a conflict of upon Opinion Advisory relied Utah Ethics *8 attorney, Arguelles represented LDA had states, firm which “the law must avoid Arguelles present and confessed been when in in representing a defendant a case which Johnson, charged. an to four the crimes substantially participated investigator its employed investigator, previously LDA State,” by employed while the and which by County Lake and the Salt Sheriffs Office cites 1.7 of the Rules of Profes- Rule Utah investigated in which an earlier case precluding a “law firm from sional Conduct Arguelles attempted of murder was convicted long pos- representing a defendant so as the hearing, At aggravated and assault. the the sibility investigator that the testi- exists will attorneys argued LDA that there was no fy.” the that it Because claimed using that conflict and the State was the witness, planned as a the to call Johnson Arguelles motion as a “ruse.” testified that Finally, that a conflict did exist. found any At the end of he would waive conflict.’ Arguelles that could court concluded hearing, Arguelles magistrate, “I told it conflict was based just not waive the because you to not be want I will know loyalty, through upon an of which “dem- accepting going other and all issue divided counsel right Arguelles the court to have effec- found that a denial of the had waived onstrates knowingly, intelligently, assistance of counsel.”2 counsel tive and volun- tarily. Brass, magistrate appointed The ¶ LDA was dis- 9 Two months after Donaldson, and to remain in Anderson pro Arguelles his own se mo- qualified, filed standby Arguelles. ease as to counsel disqualify which was prosecutors, to tion thereafter, magistrate ap- Soon denied. ¶ 12 During hearing, Arguelles the same Brass, Donaldson, attorneys and pointed right preliminary waived his to a hearing and Arguelles. represent A Anderson to month magistrate again Arguelles asked if he later, Arguelles pro se filed a motion any believed himself “free from mental dis- court-appointed counsel and to dismiss ease, impairment defect pre- that would represent himself. knowingly, vent intelligently [him] from and 23, 1997, April hearing, an voluntarily 10 In entering Arg- into this waiver?” magistrate conducted a waiver of counsel responded, uelles “I do.” The State then questioning colloquy Arguelles, him to standby asked whether counsel had discussed whether understood what determine whether, Arguelles the waiver with in hearing happening at the and whether he standby opinion, Arguelles counsel’s under- fully consequences electing understood the Standby stood the waiver. counsel an- represent waiving himself and counsel. swered, subject “I’ve discussed that with him During magistrate colloquy, in- many times. I’ve not discussed this form Arguelles repre- formed of his my with him. It’s not participate desire to by attorney an and informed sented preliminary hearing. the waiver of the You charges facing uelles of the he was and the bright can going see that he’s a —I accompanying possible sentences say young guess male. I that’s relative. charges. magistrate Arguelles The told capable understanding form, He’s about the court rales he must follow and that my opinion.” magistrate pressed The stand- “simply not he could take stand and further, asking, accept your counsel “We’ll by telling story.” magistrate proceed representation you do not believe that Arguelles advised it was also “unwise” аppropriate it’s participate this waiver represent himself. for you but have discussed with the defen- explained dant his desires to him what answered numerous giving up by entering he’ll be clearly into this waiv- questions affirmed that he be- er; true,” respond- is that correct?” discerning himself to “That’s lieved be “of sound mind, standby magistrate mentally capable understanding ed counsel. The thus proceedings consequences concluded that had made a know- [the and the pleas, any ing, voluntary preliminary waiver] [his] and free of men- waiver of hear- ” impairment ing disease or .... rights. tal defect or and that he all of his understood present at the assistant was hear- hearing 13 At the end of the before the ing capacity standby in the counsel and did magistrate, magistrate not-guilty entered Arguelles’s raise about not concerns pleas Arguelles, for ease was bound Nevertheless, competence. mag- mental to the over district court. counsel, standby asked “Has the istrate de- you any any manifested fendant actions — II. THE BEFORE DISTRICT COURT you that would lead that he is believe knowingly, intelligently 14 In voluntarily, waiving first before the Standby May to counsel at this time?” court on district *9 responded, colloquy, again present standby counsel After this as “No.” assistant was coun- July hearing body coming testifying At the on the State's else and forward to counsel, that, disqualify Arguelles motion to long accuracy told the so as it to do with the court: trial honesty opinions and the of that are in the Virgil opinion Regardless my that. And I know Johnson's past, Mr. of who to and I testifies And, justi- testimony's personally, of me there. I past, going know I have a bad the think it's same, to be no the and all documented. I fied. And I don't see conflict with him it's And problem Virgil any- giving delivering have no with Johnson or them them facts. facts or pled that Arguelles guilty conducted another self- trial court found to sel.3 The trial court guilty plea colloquy knowingly, voluntarily, and intelli- representation each count and Arguelles, again assessing Arguelles gently, jury that be- he for and that had waived the discerning fully knowing and mind” penalty portion lieved was of “sound of trial he the the understanding “mentally capable of and of consequences was the his choice. consequences” proceedings of his and the the ¶ during 16 At time or no judge in- counsel. also choice to waive during hearings standby any pre-trial did Arguelles’s of quired the circumstances into Arguelles’s counsel raise concerns about previous and represent choice himself the to competence. Additionally, when court the Arg- disqualification Arguelles’s of counsel. any standby he asked counsel whether had procedural gave description of the uelles to questions regarding Arguelles’s decision history leading up disqualification of to the standby jury penalty phase, the waive for request- LDA. if he was now the When asked “[b]oy, many ques- are replied counsel there waiving by LDA ing representation the and ask, you to his tions I’d ask but this is “[WJell, conflict, answered, I Arguelles the So, respect I it. decision and no.” Once now, attorneys have and I am easier these again, Arguelles court the trial found just attorneys as to continue with these now voluntary intelli- knowingly made a and reiterated, stand-by judge counsel.” The gent the to a waiver of counsel and “[Yjou’re that procedure?” comfortable with jury, standby objection. no counsel made “Yes,” responded Arguelles. Referring to hearing, At of the end the himself, Arguelles’s represent decision to explicitly standby “[D]o court asked counsel him, your judge anything there asked “Is you any Standby concerns?” counsel causing you to for mind that feel to informed asked be being in a you placed reason that are to planning present was noted you properly your posture present where can might gain- he need court’s assistance “No,” you responded Arguelles. case?” “So Arguelles He ing after hours. access your you properly present believe that can no mention of concern over made case; in this is that correct?” asked defense ability competence, Arguelles’s mental do,” Arguelles. “I judge. replied himself, ability represent plead or his Arguelles guilty 15 After entered his guilty. each four plea, the court read aloud of the prior penalty phase to the One week charges, Arguelles to confirm the accu- asked hearing, standby Arguelles, with counsel’s racy charges, and confirmed that help, prohibit photography filed a motion uelles understood the nature and elements phase. Arguelles argued during penalty rights, consequences charges, and the photograph in court taking would pleading guilty. Arguelles demonstrated “very distracting irritating” would charges he that he understood the when ability infringe represent himself. on his responded appropriately, the con- corrected Arguelles in an affidavit that he indicated victims, charges to one of the tent as appear if in the courtroom would “refuse un- when he was and asked for clarification [his] the news media allowed take [were] again, to answer.4 sure how Once upcoming proceed- photograph he whether he believed asked ings.” un- mentally competent and whether by standby proceedings argued the conse- 19 This motion was derstood both quences pleas. Arguelles day the first of his indicated counsel and competent phase hearing. Arguelles and that he under- reasserted he was distracting proceedings. photography stood and the the charges Brass, assistant, serving judge example, wheth- 3. The 4. For asked still agreement exchange standby joined plead guilty in for capacity er his counsel and was Anderson, prosecutor’s promise penal- to seek the death co-counsel Donaldson. the third coercion, threat, counsel, attorney assigned standby ty unlawful was not constituted a present hearing. *10 at the influence. spend avoiding stated he did not want to time victed of this crime in March 1979. Arg- paying camera when he “should be raped atten- sixteen-year-old uelles girl in Febru- going ary tion to what’s on.” Counsel for the 1979. This case was dismissed because discreet, argued quiet- to have media one conviction on the earlier sex back, placed in shutter camera under the сharge.6 May 1980, abuse In Arguelles was judge Arg- court’s control. The aggravated denied convicted of sexual assault of a “[Wje’ll stated, motion but fifteen-year-old girl, uelles’s see how it degree felony, first goes.” judge Arguelles stay The ordered and was also attempted convicted of capital in the courtroom after he threatened to homicide of another fifteen-year-old girl, a degree felony. leave. incarcerated, first Arg- While escaped uelles custody from approximate- for Immediately pro- after the motion to ly forty-five minutes. He was not convicted denied, Brass, photography acting hibit escape at the time of Arg- the crime.7 counsel, standby argued a motion to ex- parole 25, uelles was released on on June impact clude victim evidence.5 After the ar- Arguelles prison returned to in Au- gument, Arguelles Brass told the court that 1992, gust being after convicted of two counts percent had “missed at least 50 of what we aggravated sexual young abuse of two say each had to because he’s troubled children. photography place.” judge that’s taken ¶23 agreed only distracting, it was but “mod- In the phase aggrava- second estly” distracting. day case, On the second presented tion the State evidence of the hearing, Arguelles while cross-examining charged confession, murders. In his 1996 witness, Arguelles asked the if Arguelles cameraman February 21, 1992, stated that on “[cjould off, ... please.” he knock that forty-two-year-old abducted Margo Bond judge then asked the worked, cameraman to “hold the from the school where she drove her Arguelles camera.” After finished his cross- to the west County, desert Tooele sexually examination, judge told the cameraman assaulting way, her on the then removed her prohibition clothes, there was “no further her, on the cam- strangled death, bound her era.” body. and buried her During three-day penalty phase, 19, 24 March Arguelles On offered presented the State aggravating thirteen-year-old ride, Stephanie Blundell a factors, including Arguelles’s pri- evidence of Timpanogos Canyon, drove her to sexually specific her, crimes and the death, circumstances of strangled assaulted her to charged mitigation, Arg- crimes. For then buried her. uelles called one witness —the officer to 25 On March Arguelles offered initially whom he confessed—and offered re- fourteen-year-old Tuesday Roberts and six- tests, ports, and notes of his medical and teen-year-old ride, Lisa Martinez a then psychological history. Throughout pen- a nearby Arguelles drove them to school. alty phase, Arguelles represented himself girls handcuffed together attempted standby with some assistance from counsel. sexually resisted, assault Lisa. When Lisa ¶ 22 presented The State first Arguelles evidence of repeatedly stabbed her with a Arguelles’s prior chisel, crimes. In killing October wood her.8 then fifteen, Arguelles when he was Tuesday was convicted took to a different location and sex- gas of car and theft. ually October Tuesday assaulted her. He took back uelles committed sexual ten-year- abuse of a pick to the school field up body, Lisa’s girl, degree felony. old farm, third pig He was con- strangled drove to a Tuesday to 5. This motion was denied. 8. The medical examiner testified that he found forty-three sharp injuries eighteen force beyond 6. The trial court found a reasonable injuries body. blunt force on Lisa's rape. doubt committed the beyond 7.The trial court found a reasonable doubt that committed the crime of es- cape, degree felony. a second *11 ¶ presented
death, mitigation, Arguelles one bodies at the and then buried two witness, containing that one reason medical Arguelles farm. confessed five documents information, Tuesday he was did not hand- he killed because and and a psychological any witnesses to the initial mitigating want there to be of factors for the written sheet judge Arguelles crime. to consider. had indicated little, if present “very earlier that would ¶ family called of 26 The member any” mitigation evidence. testify of the four murder victims each impact it and the had on about murder ¶ Arguelles’s request, At Brass exam- family. their Glover, Jenny department ined correc- ¶27 Bond, investigator peace officer. Margo tions husband Warren initially spoke Bond, with Glover uelles about that he saw his wife on testified last finally murders February 21, Roberts and Martinez before before she went to work confessing to of the four murders each Kennedy High School. Four Junior investigators He later, body Margo charged. then showed her found. months was Martinez, Roberts, bodies granddaughter. He where the had two and one sons were located.9 testified that Margo being “high life.” Blundell Glover on described Arguelles Body Champi- it was her belief that had not con- Builder She the Ms. Utah fessed, riding, the Martinez and Roberts murders golfing, camp- on and loved bike stated, only have and that “those ing. Mr. did I lose would not been solved Bond “not wife, found.” my bodies would never ever been my I lost best friend .... I had but Arguelles also testified that said he everything.” Glover lost way only for murders felt the to atone ¶ Blundell, Stephanie 28 Elaine Blundell’s through his execution. mother, daugh- her that she last saw testified she ter on March before left for Arguelles presented also a series of Stephanie’s body was four school. found psycho- documents related to his medical and years Stephanie had one sister and later. police logical background. report, In a 1980 brother, “very “bubbly” out- one reported Arguelles friend that going.” asked how the murder had When thirty-minute episode had in which he family, replied impacted Elaine that “[i]t yelled at on the floor and thrashed friend’s basically apart.” tore us psychological her. A 1979 evaluation stated “very understanding Arguelles that had little Juarez, Martinez’s sis- Veronica Lisa ... of ... his sexual offenses and on some ter, that she her sister and testified last saw happened.” can’t remember what occasions Mend, Roberts, Tuesday her sister’s psychological A “there test stated that they March before left house did episodes in which individual together. Tuesday’s Lisa and bodies were done, being later not know what was years and a half later. Lisa was found three recall been could not what had done.” daughters. Veronica the oldest of four testi- likely” test stated also “most try “wanted out fied Lisa to be personality had a such as “anti- disorder cheerleader, got she never the chance to but social, schizotypal, paranoid borderline schiz- that.” asked effect mur- do When what oid.” Two medical tests from 1994 and 1995 her, der had on Veronica stated complained scalp stated my best friend and she’s “[s]he was like now memory loss. numbness not there more.” no case, Roberts, Tuesday mitigation 34 At the end of his 30 Shawn Roberts’ brother, Tuesday judge to the was the asked the “refer testified that you.” I handed youngest [sic] four. She was “involved in sheet that into dance, drawing.” three-page, ... This hand-written document list- softball and liked “blackouts, loss, memory disa- “changed murder ed a Shawn testified series judge might really [sic] hit us He sociative states” that everything.... It’s hard.” stated, aggravating and mit- weighing I’ve limb.” consider when like lost a “[i]t’s body independently after four months she was murdered. 9. Bond's was discovered *12 trial igating by factors. When asked the Jim and Ken appoint- Bradshaw Brown were evidence, represented the ed Arguelles court about offered months later and responded, throughout Arguelles competency “It was indicated me the hearing. by law it well be back to that remanded ¶ May to a 38 Prior competen- if I didn’t offer the court some sort the court cy psychiatrists, hearing, three Drs. Gard- mitigation mitigation. why That’s the ner, Kovnick, Bigler, and interviewed offered.” uelles, tests, neuropsychological conducted ¶ Arguelles After had offered his miti- analyzed psychological and his and medical evidence, Arguelles gating the court asked background. Drs. Gardner and Kovnick di- in what his attitude was relation “further agnosed Arguelles with an per- antisocial psychiatric psychological examination.” disorder, sonality Bigler and Dr. found that Arguelles indicated that refuse he would to Arguelles inju- had suffered an acute brain if cooperate court ordered men- ry However, attempt. from suicide tal examinations. Arguelles each found that doctor had aggra- In the trial findings court’s present ability “sufficient to consult with mitigating factors, vating and attorney with degree his reasonable aggravating found eleven and four factors understanding rational and rational as [a] mitigating factors. The trial court stated understanding well as factual pro- testimony family that members ceedings “[t]he against him.” touching here as to their heard loss is both ¶ 39 In interviews with Drs. Gardner and enduring. they daily and The losses feel are Kovnick, Arguelles stated that and inmates altering to them.... life To them guards put had in shampoo chemicals and compassion expresses its and concern.” The toothpaste paint had sent fumes into “aggravating then trial court found that the thoughts cell. doctor felt Neither these rose outweigh, eclipse, if circumstances not paranoia, to the level of delusion or mitigating. justifying The evidence they Arguelles’s compe- neither felt affected penalty overwhelming.” death is The trial tency to with consult counsel or understand Arguelles court ordered to be executed. regarding proceed- and make decisions ings. hearing, Arguelles At testified III. POST-SENTENCING incidents, about the claimed that COMPETENCY guards trying inmates and were him make HEARING actually incompetent or cause him to be Arguelles attempted by After suicide Captain Jacobson, incompetent. found a cor- August hanging was re- the case prison, rections officer that testified to the manded district court for a on initially while he felt that claims Arguelles’s competency proceed. At a baseless, of harassment were he later found hearing May Arguelles said he Arguelles’s shampoo shampoo bleach in remember could events Arguelles’s toothpaste. He also stated stated, charged crimes “I know from Arguelles was often taunted and ridi- newspapers I read stuff what by culed other inmates. Arguelles what I know.” he could also said phase competency hearing, Arguelles not remember events from the 40 At the However, proceedings. main- Arguelles complete still testified that he did not have a stated, tained he knew he had committed recollection of his earlier trial. He “I in, and he wished to I pleaded crimes die for them. The remember went I Arguelles guilty.... court ordered asking district eval- I remember for the death psychiatrists three uated and that conflict sentence.” he maintained that appointed counsel be with assist wanted to die “because committed the [he] penalty, to seek the his desire death and with crimes.” admitted that he He and conflict competency. hearing, Arguelles “disagreements Also at this counsel had with stuff.” requested represent counsel to him told his conflict “ve- When counsel were competency proceedings. attorneys hemently opposed penalty,” LDA to the death problem only be- The court assistant also asks it was a stated requirement had court to relax the obviousness paperwork not received he
cause plain Again, error review. conflict counsel. At one associated requested from has failed to meet the Arguelles stated that counsel were court assistant point, necessary persuasion” “trying keep things him. At the burden of from” “substantial *13 testimony, precedent. Arguelles the to Id. The obviousness of his asked overturn end requirement a competent very that he at the heart of judge to find him so would strikes analysis, re- plain relaxing and this get able the sentence carried out.” error “be to would, essence, testified, quirement a new doctor assert- in create After each upon mani- thought Arguelles longer com- form review based they that still no ed injustice. given Following hearing, the trial fest We have been no reason petent. the implement to to this and decline found that “failure remember new standard court proceedings adopt it here. prior of the to some the details” “potential conflict” between and outweigh and not
uelles conflict counsel did ANALYSIS doctors, and the conclusions of the court ¶ 44 The court makes a number assistant competent. declared (1) arguments appeal. argues оn He that have, sponte, the trial court sua or- should STANDARD OF REVIEW hearing early competency a in the dered argues court that 41 The assistant proceedings rejected and should reviewing adopt should new rules for we testimony competency regarding offered capital “ have often that cases. We stated (2) competency hearing, post-sentencing argued not raised at trial cannot be ‘issues permitting that erred in the lower courts appeal’ .... for the first time unless (3) represent himself, to that petitioner ‘plain oc demonstrates that error’ improperly disqualified Arguelles’s court ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist.” curred counsel, (4) original erred that trial court (Utah Carver, 1017,1022 v. 928 P.2d Monson allowing take press photographs 1996) 1105, (quoting Lopez, v. 886 P.2d State (5) proceedings, that the trial (Utah 1994)). cases, however, In capital 1113 improperly aggravating court evaluated the court review not raised below this will issues (6) presented, that the factors error, plain for unless the defendant invited impact improperly admitted court victim Tillman, the error at trial. State v. 750 P.2d (7) evidence, a (Utah Parsons, 1987); v. 552-53 State (8) violated, speedy appeal has been (Utah 1989). 1275,1285 Thus, while felony aggravated murder statute Utah’s in capital plain will cases for we review issues are unconstitutional. death scheme error, party we not save a from will error addressing In addition the court assis- that party when “has made a conscious deci error, claims of we also note several tant’s objecting from or has led the sion refrain argu- instances which the court assistant’s Brown, trial court into error.” v. State appel- comply ments fail to with rules of (Utah 1997). P.2d procedure. late urges assistant us precedent perform de novo abandon this I. COMPETENCY in capital review all issues cases. We Home, rejected argument argues v. The court State assistant ¶4, 14, asking competent P.3d In and that 2002 UT defendant magistrate have re- precedent, we overrule trial court should assistant hearing early in the persuasion.” quired competency “a a bears substantial burden of (Utah Menzies, addition, proceedings. court assistant P.2d 1994). concluding, made new erred in The court assistant has no claims holding after arguments precedent, competency after to overturn this sentenced, Arguelles was that defendant was we therefore decline to address the issue proceed. competent Because neither again. below, ity these claim was raised we review to have rational and factual understand- ing proceedings plain against for error. of the him or claims
punishment specified
charged;
for the offense
inability
or ... his
to consult
Duty
Require
A
Trial Court to
with his counsel
participate in
Hearing
proceedings against
and to
Competency
Sua
him
Sponte
degree
reasonable
of rational
understanding.”
§
Utah Code Ann.
77-15-
¶46
argues
The court assistant
2(1)—(2)(2002). We have held that
de-
“[i]n
have,
magistrate and trial court should
sua
termining whether a
competent
defendant is
sponte,
competency
ordered
evaluation
plead
guilty, the trial court must consider
guilty,
pre-
Arguelles pled
when
waived
present
whether the defendant has sufficient
liminary hearing, and waived
ability
lawyer
to consult with his
with a
*14
counsel.
assistant
The court
claims that
degree
understanding
reasonable
of rational
do so
court’s failure to
violated
and has a rational as well
factual
as
under-
process rights.
Arg-
due
We discuss here
standing
proceedings against
him.”
plead guilty
to
competence
uelles’s
and waive
Holland,
(Utah
430,
State v.
921 P.2d
433
hearing;
compe-
a preliminary
we discuss his
1996) (internal
omitted)
quotations
(citing
to
in the
tence
waive counsel
next section.
Moran,
389, 396,
Godinez v.
509 U.S.
113
II,
See section
infra.
2680,
(1993)).
S.Ct.
125 L.Ed.2d
321
“
¶47 It is well established that due
‘[Competency is established when a defen-
process requires that a defendant be mental
can,
will,
necessarily
dant
not
but
assist or
ly competent
plead guilty and
stand
to
to
consult
Lafferty,
with counsel.’” State v.
mentally
incompetent
trial.
“A
defendant
19, 51,
(quoting
2001 UT
Arguelles affirmed that
believed
understanding
proceedings
capable of
Postr-Sentencing Competency
B.
of the
The
consequences
and the
waiver.
Evaluation
agreed.
assistant
court
¶
years
Arguelles
55
than two
after
More
¶
hearing
Arguelles’s
In
52
first
before
death,
attempted
he
was
to
suicide
sentenced
court,
guilty
the court conducted a
district
then ordered
prison.
while in
and
plea colloquy
Arguelles
discussed
with
competency
Arguelles
and
evaluations
jury.
Arguelles’s
his
to a
waiver of
still
determine whether he was
again
competency;
Arguelles
confirmed
competent
proceed.
hearing from
After
¶
Arguelles
that
was
53
record shows
that
experts,
several
the court determined
hearings
of the
before
coherent
each
Arguelles
competent.
court,
magistrate
the trial
that he
¶
that
The court
claims
appropriately,
56
assistant
responded
questions
Arguelles
competency
questions intelligently!
his own
evaluations
asked
inadequate”
that
repeatedly
“patently
were
uelles
affirmed
choice to waive
competent
erroneously
Arguelles
found
preliminary hearing, plead guilty, and
Jacobs,
382.
previously
that:
such a the relevant Findings 2. of Fact Concerning Competen- are considered. The that factors fact cy “psy do not reports address effects Arguelles is of no choactive medication” on ¶ Next, the court assistant claims on consequence since was not such that findings the trial court’s of fact concern
medication. ing competency “replete legal are er challenge Finally, findings rors.” To the factual the court assistant states court, Arguelles’s com- the court assistant “first the evaluators overlooked must supports marshal all record evidence that plaints tampered that someone had with his finding[s].” being challenged P. R.App. “the coercive effects” that Utah cell and 24(a)(9). upon findings “A trial court’s factual will an inmate. record death row however, reveals, they clearly not be overturned unless consid- are the evaluators Arguelles’s complaints tampering. Lafferty, erroneous.” ered 2001 UT ¶45, addition, prison, Arguelles since this complained While in preserved, claim toxic and that was not there were fumes his cell assistant must there placed in his sham- show that was an error in someone substances obvious, findings, poo toothpaste. suggests error was The record prejudicial. it was have been a factual for these there basis However, even if con- concerns. ¶ 68 The court assistant identifies a num- reality, had no basis one cerns he feels the trial ber of factors court failed evaluators stated that such would not notions making findings. consider in its factual level of affect rise to the delusions that would however, assistant, evi- fails to marshal the Arguelles’s competency. quite appar- It is supporting findings dence he attacks. *18 ent, therefore, that did the evaluators not Instead, addressing weight of he avoids the this overlook issue. by supporting findings evidence the court’s argues analysis The court that prefacing 66 assistant the with an that admission evaluators failed to take into consideration “there to marshal in of support” is evidence Arg- findings. Acknowledging the “coercive effects” of death on the row court’s suggests cry uelles. assistant that to existence of evidence marshal is a far participate appeal to not actually marshaling uelles’s desire from the See evidence. Woоdland, (Utah merely the is result of the uncomfortable State v. 1997) (“[Defendant] prison. environment of the assistant evi- As the must marshal the notes, sug- light a number of dence in most find- commentators a favorable to the gested being that on deleteri- ings death row has of the court and show that evidence (ii) medication, 77-15-5(4) (2001). any, § the effect of the if Utah Code Ann.
the defendant’s
affect and
demeanor and
ability
participate
proceedings.
to
in the
insufficient.”)- Having
colloquy,
the
In this
reviewed
defendant.
Id.
to be
following:
the
the
regard
with
to
court assistant’s
should do
record
claims,
findings
that the
we
factual
determine
(1) advise
his constitu-
the defendant of
legal
“replete with
trial court are not
of the
counsel,
right
tional
to the assistance of
the
errors,”
by
against
and
no means are
right
represent
well as his constitutional
to
Rather,
the
weight of the evidence.
great
(2)
himself;
ascertain that
the defendant
only
slight
a few
misstate-
findings contain
intelligence
capacity
possesses the
and
to
presumed prejudicial.
be
ments that cannot
appreciate
conse-
understand and
the
compe-
finding of
trial court’s
Reversal of the
quences
represent
of
him-
the decision
not in order.
tency therefore is
self,
de-
including
expectation
the
that the
comply
will
fendant
technical rules
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
II. WAIVER OF
a de-
recognition
presenting
and the
that
telling
matter
just
fense is not
of
one’s
that
the
argues
The court assistant
(3)
story; and
the
ascertain that
defendant
Arguelles to
permitting
lower courts erred
charges
nature
comprehends the
of the
phase
represent himself
range
permissible
proceedings,
of
makes
trial.
court
of the
assistant
punishments,
facts
additional
es-
support
claim.
arguments
this
three
understanding
to a broad
of the
First,
sential
argues
Arguelles’s waiver of
that
voluntary. The
case.
right to
was not
counsel
Arguelles
was
assistant asserts
court
(Utah
Heaton,
P.2d
constitutionally
improper choice
given a
1998);
App
see
v. Petty,
also State
2001 UT
se,
proceed pro
accept new counsel or
¶ 6,
998. In the
of such
P.3d
absence
imposition
this choice undermined
that the
of
colloquy,
we will review the record de novo
Second,
reliability Arguelles’s waiver.
validity
of the waiver.
to determine
Arguelles
not
argues
was
the assistant
review,
Heaton,
751
¶20,
(quoting
45 at
A.
Waiver
752 (1995); Klessig, Evidence Mitigating 211 Wis.2d C.
978-79
State v.
wealth v.
trial.
489,
wealth v.
maintained that
N.W.2d
requires
N.E.2d
1336
194,
41
564 N.W.2d
(1995); People
Cal.Rptr.2d
See, e.g.,
824,
160,
no more than
Simpson, 44
Starr,
171-72
831
competency
541 Pa.
716, 724
(1998),
463,
v.
(Minn.1997);
Wilder,
Mass.App.Ct.
466-67
competency
564,
while
v.
(1997);
to
Camacho,
664 A.2d
35
waive
(1995).
others
Cal.App.4th
Common-
Common-
to stand
154,
counsel
1326,
have
561
689
reliability of the death verdict. The assistant
to
employed independent
ditional
tem that
gues
creating
dence
contends
'
[27]
bring
that
mitigating
¶
forward.18
a breakdown
necessarily
80
that
Finally,
presentation mitigating
the trial court should havе
evidence
draws into
the court assistant
in the
counsel
merely
of
adversarial
to
question the
present
a
“sham,”
failed
sys
evi
ad
ar
case,
gives no
entirely
In this
the record
78
is
position
81 The assistant’s
not
compe
Arguelles was not
presume
precedent.
reason to
Su-
without
The United States
trial,
A,
I
supra,
capital
to
see section
punish-
tent
stand
that
preme Court has held
indeed,
Arguelles expressed a
provide
that
procedur-
shows
must
certain
ment statutes
intelligence
high degree
safeguards,
of coherence
of
including the consideration
al
circumstances,
colloquies
proceedings.
other
mitigating
aggravating and
presume
imposed
see no reason
is
penalty
We therefore
that the death
ensure
competent
to waive counsel.
arbitrarily
capriciously.
he was not
v.
See Johnson
alone,
past history
Texas,
350, 359-62,
2658,
of
Standing
a defendant’s
113
509 U.S.
S.Ct.
(1993). Thus,
preference
for the death
mental illness
753
mitigating
to
complied
defendant
offer
where counsel
with
where
refuses
client’s demand
evidence,
“may”
evidence).
have an
present
obli-
to
mitigating
no
We
independent
investiga-
conduct
gation to
an
agree
reasoning
with the
of these courts.
mitigation). The
tion into evidence of
vast
¶ Although
83
Supreme
thé United States
issue,
majority
considering
of courts
this
Court has never decided whether a defen-
however,
opposite
conclu-
reached
may
dant
presentation
waive the
mitigat-
sion,
a
determining
defendant’s
Sixth
evidence,
ing
opinions suggest
its
that such a
right
represent
Amendment
to
himself and
right naturally
from
extends
the Sixth
proceedings
the course of the
carries
control
emphasized
Amendment. The
Court
right
it the
choose how much —if
with
to
right
represent
to
oneself is at thе
See,
any mitigating
is offered.
evidence
—
very core of the Sixth Amendment. Faretta
Davis,
378,
e.g., United States v.
285 F.3d
806,
California,
832,
v.
422 U.S.
95 S.Ct.
(5th Cir.2002) (overturning
381-85
district
(1975).
2525, 45
right
L.Ed.2d 562
to
independent
appoint
decision to
coun-
court’s
counsel,
said,
personal
the Court has
is a
present mitigating
to
evidence defendant
sel
right
may
be waived
the defendant.
Lockhart,
present); Singleton
to
v.
refused
834,
Further,
Id.
754 unenforceable, importance right no of to waive as the court has defendant’s be would defense, an im- put defendant to counsel and and the compel means to control Bloom, Cal.Rptr. requiring presentation the practicality 259 affirmative defense.” case, evidence, if 669, Arg- “even mitigating 774 at 718. we hold that P.2d all judge argue for appointed regardless counsel to of his uelles’s sentence is sound have mitigation, power no that could mitigating there is evi- failure offer additional cooperate and compelled [the defendant] to dence. Hamblen, 627 divulge such information.” at 804.
So.2d
DISQUALIFICATION
III.
OF
DEFENSE COUNSEL
Finally,
not convinced
85
we are
possible
failure to
all
defendant’s
offer
86
court assistant claims
reliabili
undermined the
removing Arguelles’s
trial court erred
ty
Even where a defendant
of the verdict.
original appointed counsel with whom
death, penalty,
the death verdict
seeks the
apparently
uelles had
established a relation-
conformity with the
not stand
will
without
argues
ship of trust. He
that the removal
safeguards provided in our death
procedural
deprived
of his Sixth Amendment
First,
penalty is
penalty
the death
statutes.
right
of choice20 and that
counsel
pled
not available unless
defendant
therefore
reversed.
death sentence should
be
guilty
committing a
guilty
or
found
been
Arguelles’s
already
have
determined that
We
§
capital
Ann.
76-3-
crime. Utah Code
right
to counsel
not ren-
waiver of
207(1) (2001).
accepting Arguelles’s
Before
involuntary by the
either
dered
choice to
make
plea,
judge questioned Arguelles
se,
accept
proceed pro
new
see
counsel
charges
certain defendant understood
A, supra.
II
We therefore consider
section
him,
consequences
plead
against
knew the
(1)
whether
erred
here
made,
guilty,
plea knowingly
ing
determining
disqualified,
that the LDA was
Second,
voluntarily.
may not
the sentencer
(2)
properly
determined
be
impose
unless it finds
death
right
waive
to con-
could not
aggravating
doubt that
yond
reasonable
(3)
counsel,
flict-free
whether
error
outweigh mitigating circum
circumstances
disqualifying
prejudicial
LDA was
pen
imposition
and that
of the death
stance
defendant.
alty
“justified
appropriate” under the
accused,
although
87 “The
§
Ann.
76-3-
circumstances. Utah Code
right
guaranteed the
counsel
Sixth
Holland,
1019,
207(4)(b);
P.2d
State v.
777
Amendment,
have
(Utah 1989).
does not
the absolute
case, Arguelles did
1026
In this
choosing.”
her
to counsel of his or
own
any mitigating evi
present
not refuse to
Okun,
U.S.App.
LEX
States v.
dence,
United
merely limited
of such
but
the amount
14193, *5,
85,
83,
Appx.
2001 WL
IS
Fed.
judge imposed
ver
evidence. The
the death
(2d
2001).
699099,
20,
*2
The Sixth
only
finding that
had met
Cir. June
dict
after
the State
Amendment
a limited
to select
showing
penalty was
entails
its burden of
the death
represented by
attorney
one’s
person
crimes.
and be
an
appropriate for this
and these
however,
Third,
choosing;
mandato
“the essential aim of the
must withstand
sentence
§
guarantee
Ann.
76- Amendment
ad
ry appellate
Utah Code
is to
an effective
review.
3-207(5).
Arguelles’s
for each criminal
rather
uphold
sentence
vocate
defendant
We
only
carefully considering the record to
than to ensure that a defendant will inexora
after
imposed
bly
represented by
lawyer
the sentence
whom
determine whether
Wood,
States,
lawfully.
prefers.”
v.
P.2d 71
Wheat v.
486 U.S.
See State
United
1982)
(Utah
at section
100 L.Ed.2d
and discussion
S.Ct.
infra
(“the
(1988)
safeguards,
provides
amendment
procedural
sixth
VIII. Given these
they
disqualification
that we should
visions or how
relate to the
20. The court assistant also asserts
upon article
the LDA.
decline to address these claims
overturn
sentence
We
based
I,
they
adequately briefed.
because
have not been
sections 7 and 12 of
Utah Constitution
Lafferty,
P.2d
n. 5
court assis-
See State
section
of the Utah Code. The
77-1-6
(1988).
tant, however,
pro-
provides
analysis
no
of these
ensuring
can
retained
criminal
criminal defendants who
afford
trials are conducted
qualified right
counsel of
within
profession
counsel
the ethical standards of the
choice”). Thus,
considering
when
Sixth
legal proceedings
their
and that
appear fair to all
claims,
inquiry
appropriate
Amendment
“the
who
them.”22
observe
Id. at
108 S.Ct.
process,
the adversarial
on the
focuses on
*23
lawyer
relationship with
as
accused’s
his
case,
In this
90
the trial court dis
Cronic,
v.
466 U.S.
such.” United States
qualified
Johnson,
LDA because
LDA
the
an
21,104
648,
2039,
n.
657
657
S.Ct.
80 L.Ed.2d
investigator,
previously
by
was
employed
the
1,
(1984);
Slappy,
also Morris v.
461 U.S.
see
County
Salt Lake
Sheriffs Office
had
and
(1983) (hold
1610, 75 L.Ed.2d
103 S.Ct.
610
investigated an
Arg-
earlier
in
ease
which
right
ing
there is no
Sixth Amendment
attempted
uelles was convicted of
murder
meaningful attorney-client
relation
to “a
aggravated
assault. The trial
not
ship”).
testimony
ed that the
rele
Johnson was
¶88
court’s
We review the trial
case,
vant
and admissible
this
it was
disqualify
to
an
the LDA for
abuse
decision
defendant,
adverse to
parties
the
Lanoue,
See United
v.
of discretion.
States
adequate
had no other
source for
infor
this
(1st
656,
Cir.1998);
664
United
137 F.3d
mation.
(2d
Locascio,
924,
v.
6 F.3d
Cir.
States
¶ 91
assistant
The court
claims that
the
1993).
given
The trial court
sub
must be
true
State
intent to call
as a
had no
Johnson
making
deference in
stantial
its determina
merely professed
witness but
such an intent
disqualify
to
tion whether
counsel because
in an
disqualified
effort to
the LDA
nascent
“[t]he likelihood
dimensions of
deny Arguelles
to
counsel of choice.
notоriously
of interest are
hard to
conflicts
correctly
court assistant
notes that adverse
predict,
thoroughly
even for
familiar
those
counsel should not be called
a
to
Wheat,
as witness
with criminal trials.”
U.S. at
insignificant testimony
offer
to
162-63,
or as a ruse
determining
tential
competent
LDA was
counsel. After the
dis
the State
absence of evidence that
acted
*24
counsel,
qualified, Arguelles
offered
was
motive,
that the trial court
improper
we hold
declined,
voluntarily
II
which
see section
in disqualifying
its
did not abuse
discretion
A,
Second,
persuaded
we
supra.
are
LDA.
the
have
that a
outcome would
resulted
different
¶
err, however,
court did
93
trial
disqualified.
if the LDA were not
rejecting
Arguelles’s
outright
waiver of
penal
seeking the death
was adamant about
Arg-
right to conflict-free counsel. When
the
start, and,
repre
ty
matter who
from the
no
responded
willing
that he was
to waive
uelles
him,
quite unlikely that he
sented
it is
would
conflict,
Arg-
any
the trial court stated that
signifi
have
counsel to mount
allowed
right to
could not waive the
effective
uelles
or
cant
to the death sentence
that
defense
does,
A
defendant
assistance
counsel.
successful,
would have been
such a defense
however,
right
have a limited
to waive con
given
Arguelles’s
the horrific nature of
Wheat,
161-62,
486
flict-free counsel.
U.S. at
paucity
the
circum
crimes and
Johnson,
1692;
v.
also State
108 S.Ct.
see
the error in
stances.
therefore hold that
We
(Utah
484,
Ct.App.1991). Upon
490
823 P.2d
failing
Arguelles’s
to consider
waiver
con
finding
potential
a serious
conflict that defen
beyond a
flict-free counsel
harmless
rea
waive,
willing
the
to
trial court
dant
sonable doubt.
weighed
right
the
to
should
defendant’s
against
of choice
the
counsel
seriousness
PRESS
IV.
PHOTOGRAPHY
Wheat,
potential
486
at
the
conflict.
U.S.
Johnson,
163-64,
1692;
at
108 S.Ct.
823 P.2d
¶
argues that
96 The court assistant
the
Collins,
(citing
v.
F.2d
488
United States
920
by per-
trial court committed structural error
(10th Cir.1990)).
619,
the
the
626
On
face of
press
during
mitting
photographs
the
to take
record,
rejected
appears
it
trial court
the
the
argues
penalty phase hearings. He
balancing
without
waiver
interests
Arguelles’s
compromised
Amend-
Sixth
stake.
represent
it
right
ment
himself since
error,
Arguelles’s
Upon finding
94
need
have influenced
choice
seek
we
prepare a
penalty
if we find
error
the death
and not
“mean-
not reverse
sentence
ingful” mitigation case. The court assistant
beyond
harmless
a reasonable doubt.23
be
Honie,
photography
argues
allowing
v.
57
977 also
State
2002 UT
P.3d
¶ 35,
19,
Eighth
(quoting
Lafferty,
v.
2001 UT
Amendment because the
violated
342).
photographer
drove
“An error is harmful
if it
“distraction of
verdict;
if,
reject
proceedings
undermines our
uelles to shorten
confidence
error,,
mitigation
sufficiently high meaningful
case.” The State ar-
minus the
there is
argues that
a constitutional error so undermines the
23. The court assistant
we should
which
prejudice
proceedings
treat each of his
of error as a
fairness of the
must
claims
structural
States,
presumed.
520
and reverse
Johnson v. United
U.S.
error
the sentence
no harmless
461,
1544,
468-69,
analysis.
exceptions,
L.Ed.2d
117 S.Ct.
718
error
With few
constitu-
(1997). We find no merit in the court assistant’s
tional errors are
for harmlessness. See
reviewed
California,
argument
presumptive-
Chapman
treat
v.
U.S.
that we
all errors
S.Ct.
(1967).
adopt
ly prejudicial, and we decline to
such a
find
2733,
are
77 L.Ed.2d
udicial. We
not convinced
U.S.
S.Ct.
(1983).
rejected
penalty
analysis,
an
the death
or
Under
Wood
would have
“meaningful” mitigation
simply
invalid
will
removed from
presented
case
factor
during
calculus,
photography
pen-
aggravating
if
factors still
there not been
fact,
alty
hearing.
prior
outweigh mitigating
beyond
one month
a reason-
phase
factors
doubt,
upheld.
filing
prohibit photography,
will be
motion
able
the death sentence
Honie,
64,
4,
Arguelles had commented to the trial court State v.
2002 UT
proof of serious
Arguelles.
in
for heinous acts
present
order
factors. The State
aggravating
qualify as
aggra-
of
trial court’s discussion
The
ag-
regardless of whether the
argues that
is somewhat
vating and
factors
meets the tech-
factor considered
gravating
indi-
analysis, the record
unclear. On close
heinousness, the court is
of
nical definition
aggravating factors were
that some
cates
nature of the
consider the
permitted to
factor
than once and one
referred to more
determining
in
the sentence.
acts
criminal
by the trial
more than once
was counted
num-
discussing the
example, in
court. For
did not
find the trial court
114 We
killed,
makes
the court also
ber of victims
brutality Arguelles’s
considering the
err
history
criminal
Arguelles’s
reference
First,
the level
regardless of whether
acts.
Tuesday
killed to
Roberts was
the fact that
brutality
level of heinousness
rose to the
potential
The
destroy her as a
witness.
Tuttle,
brutality
be consid
as outlined
Arguelles’s
record
criminal
court later cites
balancing
aggrava
if relevant to
ered
and the
independent aggravating factor
as an
Code
ting
mitigating evidence. Utah
i.e.,
witness,
Tuesday
potential
murder of
76-3-207(2)(a)(iv) (Supp.2001). Sec
Ann.'§
Roberts,
aggravating
independent
another
as
ond,
suggestion that the
assistant’s
factor.
aggra
not reveal
heinous
does
аp-
factors
aggravating
some
117 While
by the record.
unsupported
vating factors is
times, only
multiple
pear to
referred
be.
sentencing
trial court stated
been
aggravating
appears
factor
to have
one
an
has shown
that “the defendant
proceeding
trial court
than once. The
“counted” more
brutality, particularly to Lisa Mar
horrific
aggravating factor is
states that the fourth
Contrary
as
to the
assistant’s
tinez.”
heinous
“involved
crimes
sertion,
to Lisa
is not limited
this statement
victims, including actual
to the
acts
terror
accurately describes the acts
Martinez
The court then refers
physical violence.”
as
against the other victims well.
committed
brutality”
as the
of the murders
the “horrific
specifical
did not
though the trial court
Even
eighth aggravating factor. To be constitu-
victims, it
ly
references
mention other
sound,
tionally
aggravating factor of hei-
them,
against
brutality committed
heinous
death
naiTow the class of
nousness must
set forth in Wood
meeting the standard
eligible
Once the definition
defendants.
Tuttle,
here in
the murders
Tuttle. As
narrowed,
difference be-
heinousness
death
physical
before
volved “terrible
abuse
brutality and heinousness is small.
tween
wholly
cause
un
an intent to
that evidenced
fact,
requirement
meet the heinousness
suffering
victims.”25
necessary
5—202(l)(p),
listed in Utah Code section 76—
Tuttle,
brutality of the
consti-
that a brutal act must
we have stated
met the threshold level
crimes therefore
Wood,
battery
or torture. State
tute
an
to warrant consideration
heinousness
1982).
(Utah
Thus,
P.2d
aggravating factor.
heinousness and brutali-
court’s treatment of
*28
factors was
ty
aggravating
separate
as two
Counting
Aggravating Fac-
Multiple
duplicative.
tors
v.
cites Parsons
118 The court assistant
(Utah 1994),
Barnes,
support
in
argues that
that the defendant’s motive
robbery could not be considered as an inde-
VI. VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE
pendent aggravating factor.
Id. The current
¶ 121
argues
The court assistant
parallel
case is not
to Parsons
since the
impact
admission and use of victim
evi
here,
murder,
underlying
aggravated
crime
sentencing
dence in the
proceeding
un
motives,
only
be the result of various
constitutional.
argues
He
that because each
might
aggra-
some of which
be considered as
murder victim
personal
has “tremendous
vating factors.
worth,” using
impact
victim
evidence does
sympathetic
119 While we are
distinguish non-capital
not
capi
crimes from
argument
generally
that it
inappropri
is
tal ones.
aggravating
ate to count the same
factor
¶ 122 The
Supreme
United States
Court
in
sentencing proceeding,
more than once
has held that under certain circumstances
sentencing process
we note that the
does not
impact
permissible
victim
evidence is
under
comparison
involve a mere
of the number of
the federal
Payne
constitution.
v. Tennes-
aggravating
mitigat
factors to the number of
see,
2597,115
U.S.
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
Rather,
ing factors.
“[t]hese standards re
(1991).
Utah Code section 76-3-207 al-
quire
sentencing body
that the
compare the
lows for the consideration
impact
of victim
totality
mitigating against
totality
of the
during sentencing.
Utah Code
factors,
aggravating
of the
not
terms of
76-3-207(2)(a)(iii)
§Ann.
(Supp.2001).
aggravating
the relative numbers of the
factors,
mitigating
but
terms of then-
¶ 123 Even if we
impact
were to find victim
respective
substantiality
persuasive
evidence unconstitutional under state consti-
Wood,
ness.”
one of several require Arguelles’s .appeal. automatically not rever- stances does penalty.” Stephens, Zant v. sal of the death 862, 890, 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 462 103 S.Ct. U.S. OF AG- VIII. CONSTITUTIONALITY (1983). court did not Given MURDER GRAVATED FELONY evidence, and formally impact consider victim AND DEATH PENALTY STATUTE given impact that the victim evidence offered SCHEME minimal, we hold that error attrib- ¶ The claims that court assistant evidence was uted to the admission of such aggravated felony murder statute and Utah’s harmless. penalty scheme are unconstitutional. death claims Specifically, the court assistant TO SPEEDY APPEAL
VII. RIGHT
death-eligi-
fails to
the class of
each
narrow
properly
murders or to
limit the discre-
ble
¶
argues that the
124 The court assistant
tion of the sentencer. We have addressed
right
government
Arguelles’s
has violated
felony
challenges
aggravated
mur-
Utah’s
relies
speedy appeal.
a
court assistant
penalty
scheme
der statute
death
(10th
Champion,
on Harris v.
we will state move, failing sponte, in not err sua for analysis argument an unless for different competency hearing early proceedings in the analyses under the state and federal consti finding Arguelles competent in tutions is briefed.... This Court will not hearing. post-sentencing competency constructing engage arguments in out of knowingly, competently, uelles and voluntari- capital whole cloth on behalf defendants counsel, ly waived his and his failure 1239,1247 Lafferty, cases.” State additional to offer evidence did 1988). (Utah n. 5 integrity not undermine the of the verdict. recognize Any disqualifying Arguelles’s Even if origi- we were to error harmless, speedy appeal, right to a it would not have nal counsel was as was the trial pro appeals in this decision to press photography been violated ease. court’s allow interrupted months proceedings. for nineteen The trial court cess did attempted improperly victim-impact and the when suicide not admit evidence. competency Arguelles’s right speedy appeal remanded for hear case was Further, violated, ing. aggravated for felony the court assistant asked been and Utah’s extensions from this court to com numerous murder statute and death scheme brief, plete and file his before and after are not We therefore af- both unconstitutional. Thus, competency hearing. firm sentence. court, opinion rejected by 27. The author of this continues to hold been and therefore ac- expressed quiesces operation prece- in State v. in the the court’s the views her dissent acknowledges Young, but that those views dent. *30 RUSSON, peal. I Justice Justice WILKINS am mindful of countless hours of Judge GREENWOOD concur Chief expended by effort him working through vo- opinion. Justice DURHAM’S researching luminous records and the diffi- cult and sensitive capital issues case. himself, Having disqualified by Ml of this monetary was done him without Associate Chief Justice does not DURRANT compensation. herein; participate Judge PAMELA Appeals GREENWOOD from the Court of
sat.
HOWE, Justice, concurring: express my I appreciation 1311 concur. appointed
and thanks to our court assistant argue this court brief and the issues
presented mandatory statutory ap- in this