Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state
729 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 16, 238 Ariz. 553, 364 P.3d 472 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A capital defendant's pretrial offer to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of natural life is relevant and admissible mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of a trial to demonstrate the defendant's acceptance of responsibility.
Facts:
- Jesus Busso-Estopellan was charged with two counts of first-degree murder.
- The State filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.
- Less than a year after his indictment, Busso-Estopellan's attorneys sent a letter to the trial court judge.
- The letter stated that Busso-Estopellan was willing to accept a plea offer for a natural life sentence if the State were to make such an offer.
- The State did not extend a plea offer to Busso-Estopellan.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesus Busso-Estopellan filed a pretrial motion in limine in the trial court seeking to introduce evidence of his willingness to plead guilty during the penalty phase.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the evidence was irrelevant and only showed a desire to avoid the death penalty.
- Busso-Estopellan sought special action relief from the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals summarily declined to exercise jurisdiction over the matter.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted Busso-Estopellan's petition for review to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a capital defendant's pretrial offer to plead guilty, conditioned on receiving a natural life sentence, admissible as mitigating evidence of acceptance of responsibility during the penalty phase?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Timmer
Yes. A capital defendant's pretrial offer to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of natural life is admissible as mitigating evidence. The court reasoned that under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as interpreted in Lockett v. Ohio, a defendant must be allowed to present any aspect of their character as a mitigating factor. An offer to plead guilty is relevant to the non-statutory mitigating circumstance of 'acceptance of responsibility' because it tends to make that fact more probable. The court held that the conditional nature of the offer (i.e., contingent on avoiding the death penalty) affects the weight a jury might give the evidence, not its fundamental admissibility. The trial court's role is not to weigh this evidence but to allow the jury to do so, as each juror must individually assess whether the offer shows acceptance of responsibility and how significant it is.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of admissible mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of Arizona capital cases. It establishes that even conditional or seemingly self-serving actions, like a plea offer to avoid death, possess sufficient relevance to the defendant's character to be presented to a jury. The ruling reinforces the principle that it is the jury's exclusive role to weigh mitigating evidence, limiting the trial judge's ability to exclude such evidence based on a premature assessment of its value. This precedent provides capital defendants with a clear pathway to introduce their willingness to plead guilty as a strategy to argue for leniency.
