Hidalgo v. Arizona (Denial of Cert.)
583 U.S. 1196 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Eighth Amendment, a state's capital sentencing scheme must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. This narrowing function must be performed by the legislature, either by narrowly defining capital offenses or by establishing statutory aggravating factors that meaningfully separate death-eligible murders from others.
Facts:
- Abel Daniel Hidalgo was convicted of first-degree murder in Arizona, making him subject to the state's capital punishment scheme.
- Arizona's criminal statutes broadly define first-degree murder to include premeditated killings and felony murder based on 22 possible predicate offenses.
- To determine death eligibility, Arizona law requires a jury to find at least one of several statutory aggravating circumstances.
- Hidalgo presented evidence from a study of over 860 first-degree murder cases in Maricopa County, Arizona, from 2002 to 2012.
- The study suggested that one or more of Arizona's statutory aggravating circumstances were present in 856 of the 866 cases reviewed, making approximately 98% of first-degree murder defendants eligible for the death penalty.
Procedural Posture:
- Abel Daniel Hidalgo was prosecuted for first-degree murder in an Arizona state trial court.
- During the sentencing phase, Hidalgo filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing to present evidence that Arizona's capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional, which the trial court denied.
- Hidalgo was subsequently sentenced to death.
- Hidalgo (as appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
- The Supreme Court of Arizona (appellee being the State of Arizona) affirmed the trial court's decision, holding the sentencing scheme constitutional.
- Hidalgo (as petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme violate the Eighth Amendment because its numerous statutory aggravating circumstances make virtually every defendant convicted of first-degree murder eligible for the death penalty, thereby failing to genuinely narrow the class of death-eligible persons?
Opinions:
Concurrence in the denial of certiorari - Justice Breyer
The Court did not answer this question, as it denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. However, Justice Breyer, writing for four justices, explained that the issue presents a significant constitutional question regarding the Eighth Amendment's narrowing requirement. Precedent demands that states 'genuinely narrow' the class of death-eligible defendants through legislative means, either by narrowly defining capital murder or by using statutory aggravating factors. Breyer reasoned that Arizona's first-degree murder statute is exceptionally broad, and if Hidalgo's evidence is true that the aggravating factors apply to 98% of cases, the scheme fails to perform any meaningful narrowing. He critiqued the Arizona Supreme Court's reliance on factors like prosecutorial discretion and appellate review, stating that precedent requires the narrowing to occur 'at the stage of legislative definition.' Despite the gravity of the issue, Breyer concurred in the denial of certiorari because the empirical evidence had not been fully developed or tested in an evidentiary hearing in the lower courts, making the record insufficient for a definitive ruling.
Analysis:
While this is not a merits decision, Justice Breyer's statement respecting the denial of certiorari is highly significant as it signals the Court's potential willingness to scrutinize capital sentencing schemes that fail to perform a meaningful narrowing function in practice. It provides a clear roadmap for future Eighth Amendment challenges, emphasizing the importance of developing a strong empirical record to demonstrate that a state's aggravating factors are overly inclusive. The statement puts states with broad lists of aggravators on notice that their schemes are constitutionally vulnerable and may invite future litigation where defendants can establish a more complete factual record.
