Date of Birth: June 30, 1947
Defendant: Caucasian
Victim:  Caucasian

Around 12:30 p.m. on August 29, 1983, Rossi went to the Scottsdale home of Harold August, supposedly to sell a typewriter. Instead, he shot Mr. August three times.

After the first two shots, Mr. August said, "You've got my money and you've shot me-what more do you want?" Rossi then shot August in the mouth, killing him.

A neighbor heard the shots and walked into the August home. Rossi hit her over the head with a blackjack and shot her twice in the chest. Rossi used exploding bullets on both victims, but she survived.

PROCEEDINGS

    Presiding Judge: Ed W. Hughes (trial, sentencing, resentencing)
        Philip W. Marquardt (second resentencing)
    Prosecutor: Cleve Lynch
    Start of Trial: April 10, 1984
    Verdict: April 19, 1984
    Sentencing: June 25, 1984
    Resentencing: January 22, 1986 (first resentencing)
        June 23, 1988 (second resentencing)

Aggravating Circumstances:

    Grave risk of death to others (struck on appeal)
    Pecuniary gain
    Especially heinous/cruel/depraved

Mitigating Circumstances:

    None sufficient to call for leniency

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

    State v. Rossi, 146 Ariz. 359, 706 P.2d 371 (1985).
    State v. Rossi, 154 Ariz. 245, 741 P.2d 1223 (1987).
    State v. Rossi, 171 Ariz. 276, 830 P.2d 797 (1992).

  

State v. Rossi (Rossi I), 146 Ariz. 359, 706 P.2d 371 (1985)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE:

Defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced to death for the murder. This is defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(F)(3) (Grave Risk of Death) - REVERSED
The defendant attempted to murder a woman who came into the house after he had shot the victim to death. The Court said the factor was not satisfied because the woman was an intended murder victim and she had not been in the "zone of danger" during the victim's murder.

(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
The (F)(5) finding was not discussed, except in reference to the constitutionality of this aggravating circumstance, which had been previously decided in State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 694 P.2d 222 (1985).

(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD

Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. The victim was grazed by the first gunshot, and remained conscious after the second shot, which was to the chest. The victim had time to reflect as to his ultimate fate and to plead for his life before the fatal shot.
Physical Pain: Found. The victim was in pain before his death. The first shot grazed the victim, and the second shot was to the chest. The ammunition used by the defendant was designed to create greater tissue damage. The victim was conscious for a brief time after both shots were fired and before the final, fatal shot to the head.

Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Found. Defendant used special bullets designed to inflict greater tissue damage than typical ammunition.
Relishing: Found. The defendant bragged about the murder, and gave three spent bullets as a "souvenir" to a friend. After shooting the victim, defendant said "that the bullets did not make as big a hole as they're supposed to."
Senselessness: Found. The murder was not necessary to complete the goal of robbery and escape.
Helplessness: Found. The victim was sixty-six years old and in failing health. The victim was in no position to prevent the robbery after defendant shot him in the chest, further rendering him helpless.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

The Court vacated the death sentence because the trial court used the wrong standard to evaluate the (G)(1) and (G)(2) mitigating circumstances. The trial court thought that in order for impairment to be a mitigating circumstance under (G)(1), it would have to rise to the level of a defense. Similarly, he thought that in order to have the (G)(2) circumstance of duress, it would have to rise to the level of a defense. The Court also found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his ability to be rehabilitated.

JUDGMENT:

Death sentence vacated, not because of error in finding aggravation, but due to error in determining mitigation.

In Rossi II, 154 Ariz. 245, 741 P.2d 1233 (1987), the Court found ability for rehabilitation, but held lack of showing that defendant was so impaired that he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the murder. No opinion was expressed as to a sentence of life or death. In Rossi III, 171 Ariz. 276, 830 P.2d 797 (1992), the Court ultimately upheld the imposition of the death penalty for this murder. At no time after the first appeal was the trial court's determination that the murder was committed in an especially "heinous, cruel, or depraved" manner ever at issue.

State v. Rossi (Rossi III), 171 Ariz. 276, 830 P.2d 797 (1992)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE:

The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and first-degree burglary. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder. Defendant appealed and the Arizona Supreme Court, 146 Ariz. 359, 706 P.2d 371 (1985), vacated the original death sentence and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. In that first appeal, defendant's convictions and other sentences, save the death penalty, were affirmed. Defendant was again sentenced to death at the trial court, and the Supreme Court, 154 Ariz. 245, 741 P.2d 1223 (1987), affirmed the decision in part and remanded for resentencing. The trial court sentenced defendant to death for a third time. From that resentencing, defendant now has his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD

Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. The Court held that the victim was in pain, was conscious for a short duration after being shot the second time, and had time to ponder the uncertainty of his ultimate fate. This was demonstrated by the victim telling defendant "you have my money, you shot me, what more do you want." 171 Ariz. at 279.
Physical Pain: Found. See Mental Anguish.

Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Found. The Court found gratuitous violence, though that finding is not explicitly stated, by holding that "defendant used bullets designed to inflict greater tissue damage on a human body." 171 Ariz. at 280.
Relishing: Found. The Court expressly finds defendant relished the murder when he bragged to friends about the killing, gave three bullets to Bill Nelson as a souvenir, and complained that the bullets should have made a larger hole in the victim. 171 Ariz. at 280.
Senselessness: Found. Defendant could have committed the burglary and escaped without committing the murder. The defendant was "totally without regard for human life." 171 Ariz. at 280.
Helplessness: Found. The victim was sixty-six years old, in poor health, and unable to prevent the burglary.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

There is no discussion of mitigation in this opinion. See prior Rossi I and Rossi II opinions cited above.

JUDGMENT:

Sentence affirmed.

Richard Michael Rossi