To pass constitutional muster, must a death eligibility scheme collectively narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty?

QUESTION PRESENTED “To pass constitutional muster, a capital sentencing scheme must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.” Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 244 (1988) (cleaned up). When the legislature elects to use a broad definition of murder combined with aggravating factors, this narrowing requirement has long been understood to require the aggravating factors to collectively narrow the persons eligible for death. Arizona has split from this rule. The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that only individual aggravators need narrow; the collective scheme need not. This is the sole basis for the court’s conclusion that Arizona’s scheme constitutionally narrows, even though nearly 99% of first-degree murder defendants qualify for one or more aggravating factors. Arizona’s decision requires this Court to clarify a limited issue: To pass constitutional muster, must a death eligibility scheme collectively narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty? ii