Abstract
In determining eligibility for the death penalty, Arizona law requires defendants who have scored 70 or below on an IQ test to prove mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. In State v. Grell, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the question of whether placing such a burden on a defendant is unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which held that the execution of a mentally retarded criminal defendant constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Emphasizing that Atkins allows states to develop appropriate ways to enforce this constitutional restriction, the court held in a 4 to I decision that Arizona may place the burden on the defendant to prove mental retardation, and that the clear and convincing standard withstands constitutional scrutiny. The court further held that a jury determination of mental retardation is not required.
How to Cite
49 Ariz. L. Rev. 775 (2007)
16
Views
10
Downloads