Walton v. Arizona

497 U.S. 639, 110 S. Ct. 3047, 111 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1990)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Walton v. Arizona

United States Supreme Court
497 U.S. 639, 110 S. Ct. 3047, 111 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1990)

Facts

Jeffrey Walton (defendant) was found guilty of first-degree murder. In accordance with Arizona state law, the trial court rather than a jury determined whether Walton would be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment. State law also required that the trial court impose the death penalty if (1) one or more of several listed aggravating circumstances existed and (2) no mitigating circumstances were substantial enough to justify leniency. If the state proved that an aggravating circumstance existed, the burden was on the defendant to establish that sufficient mitigating circumstances existed to justify leniency. Possible aggravating circumstances included committing a murder for financial gain or “in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.” Under state caselaw, “especially cruel” meant that the victim had suffered mental anguish before his death, and “especially depraved” meant that the perpetrator had relished the murder. During the sentencing hearing, the state argued that two aggravating circumstances existed because Walton had committed the murder in an especially heinous manner and for financial gain. Specifically, Walton and two others had intentionally looked for a victim to kidnap, rob, and carjack. Walton had escalated the crime to murder and left the victim alive in the desert to die many days later. Walton argued that his history of substance abuse, his exposure to abuse as a child, and his age of 20 were mitigating factors. The trial court determined that the aggravating circumstances existed and that the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh them. The court sentenced Walton to death. Walton appealed the death-penalty sentence. Among other arguments, Walton claimed that putting the burden on him to establish mitigating factors essentially created a presumption in favor of the death sentence, which made the sentence unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. Walton also claimed his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial meant a jury, not a judge, must make all factual findings regarding aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed the sentence. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

Concurrence (Scalia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership