State v. Davis
206 Ariz. 377, 415 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 48, 79 P.3d 64 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mandatory minimum sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when it is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed, a determination that requires a court to review the specific facts and circumstances of the case rather than just the abstract nature of the crime.
Facts:
- In January 1999, thirteen-year-old T.E. and her stepsister met nineteen-year-old Jason and twenty-year-old Anthony Davis at Davis's home.
- Davis informed the girls he was twenty, and T.E. stated she was fourteen.
- Later that night, Davis and T.E. engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.
- A week later, fourteen-year-old P.T. accompanied the other girls to Davis's house, where P.T. learned Davis was twenty.
- Davis and P.T. engaged in consensual sexual intercourse on three separate occasions over the following two weeks.
- The sexual encounters did not involve any violence, threat, or coercion, and the victims willingly participated.
- After the girls' parents discovered the men at a babysitting job, T.E. and her stepsister ran away to Davis's house, where police later found them.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Arizona charged Anthony Davis in state trial court with four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor.
- A jury convicted Davis on all four counts.
- The trial judge sentenced Davis to a statutorily required mandatory minimum of fifty-two years in prison.
- The trial judge also entered a special order finding the sentence 'clearly excessive' and allowing Davis to petition for clemency.
- Davis appealed his conviction and sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which affirmed.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted Davis's petition for review.
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 a mandatory minimum sentence of fifty-two years without the possibility of parole for a twenty-year-old convicted of four counts of consensual sexual conduct with two post-pubescent minors violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Berch, Justice
Yes. A mandatory minimum sentence of fifty-two years without parole is grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed under these specific circumstances and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment. The court overruled its precedent in State v. DePiano, holding that Eighth Amendment proportionality review requires an examination of the specific facts and circumstances of the offense. The court first found an inference of gross disproportionality based on several factors: the absence of violence or coercion, the victims' willing participation, Davis's lack of a prior adult criminal record, and his low maturity level. The court validated this conclusion through intra-jurisdictional and inter-jurisdictional analyses. The sentence was disproportionate compared to sentences for more serious crimes in Arizona (like second-degree murder) and far exceeded the minimum sentence possible for similar offenses in any other state. The combination of the sentence's mandatory length, flat-time requirement, and consecutive nature was a key factor in its unconstitutionality.
Dissenting - McGregor, Vice Chief Justice
No. The mandatory sentence, while lengthy, does not violate the Eighth Amendment, and the court should defer to the legislature's judgment in protecting children. The majority's analysis is flawed because it improperly considers the victims' 'consent' and prior sexual history, which effectively blames the victims for the crime. The legislature has made a clear policy decision that children under fifteen lack the legal capacity to consent to sex with an adult, and the court should not substitute its judgment. The majority's fact-finding about Davis's maturity is inappropriate for an appellate court, and its reliance on the subjective reactions of the judge and jurors is not a valid basis for a constitutional ruling. The proper analysis under Harmelin v. Michigan requires deference to the legislature's penological goals, which in this case are protecting children and punishing offenders severely, and does not support striking down the sentence.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in Arizona by overruling State v. DePiano and mandating an individualized, fact-specific inquiry for proportionality challenges to mandatory sentences. It established that courts must look beyond the statutory label of a crime to the actual conduct of the defendant and the circumstances of the offense. This 'as-applied' approach serves as a crucial judicial check on rigid mandatory sentencing schemes that can produce unconstitutionally excessive punishments in less egregious cases. The decision empowers defendants to challenge sentences that, while statutorily correct, 'shock the moral sense of the community' based on the specific facts of their case.
