Arizona v. Rumsey

Background

A man convicted in Arizona of armed robbery and first-degree murder faced a separate sentencing hearing before a judge who was required to decide whether death or life imprisonment should be imposed. At the first sentencing the judge issued a special verdict finding no statutory aggravating circumstances and sentenced the defendant to life without parole for 25 years. The Arizona Supreme Court later concluded the judge had misread a statute about murders for pecuniary gain, set aside the life sentence, and sent the case back for a new sentencing hearing, where the judge found an aggravator and imposed the death penalty.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars imposing death after an earlier sentencing effectively acquitted the defendant of that penalty. Relying on Bullington v. Missouri, the Court held that Arizona’s capital sentencing resembles a trial: the sentencer has only death or life to choose, must find specific aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and makes formal factual findings. Because the first sentencing produced findings that legally entitled the defendant to life, it amounted to an acquittal on the death issue, and retrying that issue is barred even if the original decision rested on an error of law. The Court declined to overrule Bullington.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents states with similar capital sentencing procedures from seeking the death penalty after a sentencer has already rejected it. Prosecutors and trial courts must treat a completed life sentence finding as final for the death question, and appellate courts cannot force a second sentencer to reconsider that penalty.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing Bullington was wrongly applied and that correcting a legal error on remand should not be barred by double jeopardy.