arizona death row | My Crime Library

Kenneth Thompson Arizona Death Row

Kenneth Thompson was sentenced to death by the State of Arizona for two murders. According to court documents Kenneth Thompson used a hatchet to murder Penelope Edwards, and her boyfriend, Troy Dunn. Afterwards he would set the bodies on fire. Kenneth Thompson was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death.

Arizona Death Row Inmate List

Kenneth Thompson 2021 Information

ASPC Eyman, Browning Unit
PO Box 3400
KENNETH W. THOMPSON 334538
Florence, AZ 85132
United States

Kenneth Thompson More News

The man who tried and failed to convince jurors that his upbringing as a Scientologist helped rationalize why he bludgeoned two people to death and set their bodies on fire was sentenced Wednesday to death by a Prescott jury.

The jury announced its verdict of death shortly after noon, according to a public information officer for the Yavapai County Superior Court.

Kenneth Wayne Thompson, 35, used a hatchet and knife to kill his sister-in-law, Penelope Edwards, and her boyfriend, Troy Dunn, in March 2012, according to court testimony. He then poured acid over the bodies and set the house on fire before fleeing the scene.

A jury convicted him of the killings Feb. 20. Jurors began deliberating on March 30 whether Thompson should spend his life in prison or die by lethal injection.

Prosecutors with the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office painted the crime as a deliberate plan, hatched in Thompson’s mind days before and carried out unbeknownst to anyone, including his wife, Gloria.

As evidence, prosecutors told jurors how Thompson bought a gun and a temporary cellphone in the days before. He then told his wife he was leaving their home in the Ozarks region of Missouri to travel to Memphis to deal with a legal issue involving his parents’ estate.

Instead, Thompson drove to Arizona, making the journey in just over a day with minimal stops, according to court testimony.

Thompson’s attorneys didn’t dispute the bare facts. But they offered a different motivation and rationale, rooted in Thompson’s being raised as a Scientologist.

Thompson, in his attorney’s version, saw himself on a mission to rescue two children who were in his sister-in-law’s care. Thompson’s wife, Gloria, had cared for the children temporarily while her sister, Penelope, had served a prison sentence. After the children were returned to their mother, Gloria still fretted about the kids’ well-being, testimony showed.

Thompson and his wife had just discovered that one of the children was being treated in the psychiatric ward of a children’s hospital. And for Thompson, who was raised as a Scientologist, that was akin to killing the child spiritually.

“(Scientologists) think psychology is evil and a scam,” defense attorney Robert Gundacker told jurors in his opening statement.

Thompson, according to his attorneys, came to a junction of Interstate 40 and made an impulsive decision to head west to Arizona rather than east to Tennessee.

Thompson’s wife sent increasingly frantic text messages to his phone, imploring him to contact her. But Thompson didn’t take his phone on the trip, testimony showed. He had a temporary phone; his usual phone was found at his Missouri home weeks later, his wife testified.

The trip was not evidence of premeditation, his attorney said, but showed how seriously Thompson took his religious belief that the child receiving mental treatment was in spiritual peril and needed rescuing.

Thompson, speaking to jurors before they began deliberating his sentence, said he showed up at the house aiming to bribe his sister-in-law to let him bring the children back with him to Missouri.

I was going to try to buy happiness for these two children,” Thompson said, according to a story in the Prescott Daily Courier. Thompson, according to the Courier, spoke to the jury for nearly four hours.

Thompson told jurors the conversation about the children turned violent.

“I can’t say I’m sorry they’re dead,” Thompson told jurors, according to the Courier. “Penelope Edwards hurt her children all the time. Troy hurt children. He was not a good guy.”

His attorneys argued that Thompson killed the couple in the heat of passion. They asked jurors to return a verdict of manslaughter.

The jury deliberated less then two hours before returning the verdict that Thompson was guilty of first-degree murder. That same jury then began deciding whether the crime merited the death penalty.

Gregory Parzych, one of Thompson’s attorneys, said his client showed little emotion in the courtroom when the verdict was announced.

Parzych, who defended Thompson along with two public defenders from Yavapai County, said the defense team was disappointed that their strategy of trying to get jurors to see the crime through Thompson’s unique upbringing did not keep their client off death row.

“When you get a death verdict, you will always second-guess yourself and you always regret certain things that you did or did not do,” he said. “That’s just inevitable.”

Though the state objected to the defense, the judge allowed Thompson’s attorneys to spend the better part of a day at trial walking jurors through the beliefs of Scientology.

An expert in the religion, flown in from Canada, gave sworn testimony about the origins of the religion, which included a warlord named Xenu who buried beings in a volcano on what is now Planet Earth.

Jurors also heard about the use of introspective counseling called “auditing” that Scientology adherents believe can rid the body of unwanted thetans, leaving a person in the desired state of “clear.”

Thompson’s ex-wife, Gloria, testified that Thompson had stopped being a practicing Scientologist, partly because of the expense.

Other testimony suggested that Thompson was a so-called “free zone” Scientologist. That schism of the faith adheres to what it says are the original teachings of the church’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and does not follow the church’s current leader, David Miscavige.

The Church of Scientology was not pleased to see its religious beliefs become entangled in a brutal murder trial.

A Church of Scientology spokesperson, Karin Pouw, in a statement sent to The Republic in February, said the testimony about Scientology was distorted and incorrect, contributing to “hate, intolerance and bigotry.”

Deputy Yavapai County Attorney Steve Young echoed that sentiment during his closing arguments to jurors before they decided whether Thompson was guilt

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/04/03/jury-delivers-death-sentence-man-who-blamed-killings-scientology/3338233002/

Kenneth Thompson Death

Kenneth Thompson was murdered in prison on January 1, 2022. The killers have yet to be identified

Preston Strong Arizona Death Row

Preston Strong was sentenced to death by the State of Arizona for the murder of a family. According to court documents Preston Strong was convicted of a murder and serving life in prison when he was connected to a brutal family murder. According to police in 2005 Preston Strong would murder a family of six including four children. The murders have been called the La Mesa Street Murders which went unsolved for two years. Preston Strong would be convicted and sentenced to death.

Arizona Death Row Inmate List

Preston Strong 2021 Information

ASPC Eyman, Browning Unit
PO Box 3400
PRESTON A. STRONG 256997
Florence, AZ 85132
United States

Preston Strong More News

After less than two days of deliberation, a Yuma jury has found Preston Strong guilty of killing six people nearly 12 years ago in what was the largest mass murder in the border city’s history.

A jury of eight women and four men delivered the verdict Tuesday after about a day and a half of deliberation, declaring Strong guilty on all six counts of first-degree murder. KYMA News 11 reported that Strong had no reaction to the verdict.

Strong, 50, will now face a separate proceeding to decide whether he should be sentenced to death.

The verdict marks the end of nearly three months of proceedings, in which prosecutors argued that Strong killed Luis Rios, his girlfriend and her four children out of greed in what has come to be known as the La Mesa Street murders. Physical evidence was found in suspicious places, his alibi was full of holes, and gaps in Strong’s phone records directly coincided with the times the victims were arriving home, where the killer was waiting.

Defense attorneys had argued that initial witness statements described a suspect who looked nothing like Strong. And the defendant’s physical traces left at the scenes could be explained by a relationship with the family. He and Rios were best friends.

Over a span of at least six hours on June 24, 2005, the killer asphyxiated Adrienne Heredia, 29, as well as three of her children: 13-year-old Andreas Crawford, 12-year-old Enrique Bedoya and 9-year-old Inez Newman. Rios and Heredia’s 6-year-old son, Danny, died of gunshot wounds.

Several of the family members were bound, and all had been killed either inside or just outside of the home.

In an interview early Tuesday evening, Strong told The Arizona Republic that he was thinking about “the injustice” as the jury was reading its verdict.

“What’s going through my head right now is that I have to wait a couple of more years to show the misconduct by the state,” he said. “It needs to come out. There’s too much criminal misconduct taking place in this small town.”

Police were called just before 8:30 that evening, when neighbors heard gunshots and Rios’ screams. At least two witnesses told police they saw a short, stocky Hispanic man leaving the home and driving away in Rios’ Dodge Durango.

Rios was discovered in the backyard, gunned down by the pool. The children and Heredia were laid out in separate rooms of the home.

Though police had suspected Strong months after the murders, charges stalled for nearly 10 years. For one, Strong is black. And though his DNA was found on the Durango steering wheel and fingerprints on bags inside the home, police predicted defense attorneys would point to his legitimate presence in Rios’ life.

Strong was officially charged in 2014.

Strong has maintained his innocence throughout the trial, but did not take the stand in his own defense. His testimony could have opened the door to unflattering cross-examinations about his criminal history. And notably, by the time Strong was charged in the La Mesa Street case, he had already been convicted of the 2007 murder of Yuma physician Dr. Satinder Gill.

There were striking similarities in the cases. In both, the murderer remained inside the home for hours and seemingly forced the victims to make strange phone calls. Gill, like four of the La Mesa Street victims, died from suffocation. The motive for both cases seemed to be money. And Strong, at least peripherally, knew all of the victims.

Amanda Rios, Luis Rios’ daughter, said she felt “relieved” when she heard the verdict on Tuesday. Like the rest of the victims’ surviving family, she was convinced Strong was the killer.

“It definitely feels like the brick’s been taken off my shoulders,” she said.

Ray Hanna, Strong’s defense attorney, said he couldn’t comment in detail about the case but said he was “concerned” that jurors knew about the Dr. Gill conviction.

Strong’s former defense attorney, Kristi Riggins, said she was disappointed in the outcome.

“I wasn’t actually in the trial and watching the evidence come in, but it sounds to me like there was a lot of evidence that wasn’t presented,” she said. “That if it had been presented, it might have convinced the jury that they weren’t doing the right thing.”

Representatives from the Yuma Police Department and the Yuma County Attorney’s Office did not immediately return calls for comment.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-breaking/2017/04/25/jury-finds-preston-strong-guilty-2005-slayings-yuma-family/100905260/

Christopher Spreitz Arizona Death Row

Christopher Spreitz was sentenced to death by the State of Arizona for the sexual assault and murder of a woman. According to court documents the victim was found in the desert three days after Christopher Spreitz was pulled over by a police officer who noted he had blood stains and appeared disheveled. The officer let him go after taking photos of his appearance. When the body of the victim was found Christopher Spreitz was brought in and he soon confessed to sexual assault and murder. Christopher Spreitz would be convicted and sentenced to death

Arizona Death Row Inmate List

Christopher Spreitz 2021 Information

ASPC Florence, Central Unit
PO Box 8200
CHRISTOPHER J. SPREITZ 110047
Florence, AZ 85132
United States

Christopher Spreitz More News

On May 19, 1989, the police stopped Christopher Spreitz after observing that his car was smoking and leaking oil. The officer had observed the same car earlier that night also smoking and leaking oil. The officer noticed Spreitz had blood and fecal matter on his hands, arms, and on the front of his clothing. Spreitz said he had been in a fight. Police checked the location of the alleged fight, and found no indication any fight had taken place. They photographed Spreitz and his car, gave him a traffic citation, and then released him. Three days later, a passing horseback rider discovered the body of Ruby Reid in the desert. The body and surrounding area were covered in blood and fecal material. Recalling the condition of Spreitz’s clothing and person when they stopped him, the police again questioned him about the purported fight, Spreitz admitted picking up the victim at a convenience store, but claimed the victim went with him voluntarily to the desert. Spreitz said they struggled in the desert, and admitted striking her several times before raping her. He admitted crushing her skull with a rock because she would not stop screaming, but said he was not sure if she was dead when he left her. The victim’s wounds included a broken jaw, five broken ribs, numerous bruises on

Christopher Spreitz Other News

On May 18, 1989, Ruby Reid spent the evening at the Red Dog Saloon in Tucson. She had been a regular patron for a number of years. On the night in question, a bartender friend saw Ms. Reid leave the bar at approximately 11:30 p.m. Because she did not own a car and the bar was near her home, she was on foot as usual.

Meanwhile, defendant spent several hours drinking with his roommate at another bar in the vicinity. At about midnight, defendant and his roommate returned home. The roommate’s girlfriend testified that shortly after they arrived, defendant remarked that he was going out to see if he could “pick up a date.”

Between 12:35 and 12:45 a.m., Tucson Police Officer Ramon Batista noticed a man he later identified as defendant drive into a convenience store parking lot across the road from where Batista was parked. Officer Batista noted the make and color of defendant’s car. After watching defendant talk to another man for a few minutes, Officer Batista drove through the convenience store parking lot, observing that defendant was wearing torn jeans over spandex shorts and a white T-shirt.

At approximately 1:45 a.m., Officer Batista again noticed defendant’s car in downtown Tucson. Contrary to the earlier convenience store sighting where the officer recalled the car was running cleanly, the car was now smoking heavily and leaving a trail of oil. Officer Batista pulled defendant over, and with defendant out of his car, observed that his hands, arms, legs, shoes, and shirt appeared to be smeared with blood and fecal matter, his shirt was torn, and he smelled of feces. The officer noted that defendant had removed his jeans and was now wearing spandex shorts with the same T-shirt. Explaining his condition, defendant said he had fought with the man seen with him by the officer earlier that evening.

Another police officer, Sergeant Victor Chacon, drove by and stopped when he observed defendant’s appearance. Sgt. Chacon expressed concern about the condition of the man with whom defendant had allegedly fought and asked defendant to take the officers to the scene of the fight. Defendant rode unrestrained in the back seat of Officer Batista’s patrol vehicle. Upon arrival at the purported scene, however, the officers were unable to find any signs of an altercation, injuries to the other man, or the cause of the oil leak in defendant’s car. Sgt. Chacon called another police officer to take photographs of defendant, who consented to being photographed. Officer Batista noticed that defendant was flushed and his breath smelled of beer and concluded that he had been drinking. However, Officer Batista also testified that defendant’s actions evidenced no physical or mental impairment. Officer Batista issued defendant a repair order for his car and released him no later than 2:30 a.m. Friday, May 19. After defendant arrived home a short time later, he told his roommate’s girlfriend that he had had a fight with a man and he was not certain if the man were alive or dead.

On Monday morning, May 22, a horseback rider discovered Ruby Reid’s naked and decomposing body in the desert on the outskirts of Tucson. At the scene, police detectives observed tire tracks leading back to the pavement, oil stains in the dirt, footprints, and drag marks in the dirt leading away from the body. They also found feces-stained pants, tennis shoes, socks, a used tampon, and a torn brassiere. Two blood-stained rocks lay next to the body.

The medical examiner testified that, due to the advanced state of decomposition, he could not determine the full extent and nature of the victim’s injuries. For the same reason, the examiner was unable to confirm or reject the presence of semen. The injuries he was able to catalog included: bruising on the legs, arms, and back; bruising and abrasions on the buttocks; several broken ribs; internal bleeding; a broken jaw; several head lacerations; and a skull fracture where the skull had been “shoved in.” The examiner concluded that the cause of death was blunt-force trauma to the head.

The police were initially unable to develop leads in the case. However, on Wednesday, May 24, at the police station, the officer who had photographed defendant the previous Friday morning encountered the investigating detective in the Reid murder. The events of Friday morning, May 19, were mentioned during their conversation, causing the detective to sense that the blood- and feces-covered driver might be connected to the murder. Accordingly, the detective obtained a search warrant for defendant’s apartment and car. In addition, the detective ran a computer check and discovered that defendant was subject to several outstanding warrants for unsatisfied traffic citations. The defendant was at home when the detective and other officers executed the warrant at 1:30 a.m. on May 25 and arrested him based on the outstanding warrants.

At the police station, defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and, upon questioning, confessed to the murder of Ruby Reid. He claimed that he “picked up” Ms. Reid at a convenience store and that she voluntarily went with him, intending to “party.” After they arrived in the desert, defendant said that Ms. Reid reneged on her promise to have sex with him and that they fought. He stated that Ms. Reid slapped him and that he punched her in the mouth. He admitted further that he removed her clothing and had vaginal intercourse with her. Finally, defendant confessed that he hit Ms. Reid in the head with a rock more than once to make her stop yelling. He then left, not knowing if she were alive or dead. Shortly thereafter he was stopped in downtown Tucson by Officer Batista.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1437923.html

Paul Speer Arizona Death Row

Paul Speer was sentenced to death by the State of Arizona for arranging a murder from jail. According to court documents Paul Speer was in jail awaiting trial for a burglary that he committed with his brother.Chris Womble at the Adan & Enriqueta Soto residence. Paul Speer would order his other brother to kill the two witnesses. His brother Brian Womble would go to the Soto residence and shoot Enrigueta and Adan while they were sleeping. Enriqueta would wake up not realizing she was shot and when she was unable to wake Adan she called 911. Paul Speer and Brian Womble would be ultimately be sentenced to death.

Arizona Death Row Inmate List

Paul Speer 2021 Information

ASPC Florence, Central Unit
PO Box 8200
PAUL B. SPEER 140694
Florence, AZ 85132
United States

Paul Speer More News

Paul Speer was in jail awaiting trial for a burglary he committed with his brother, Chris Womble, at the residence of Adan & Enriqueta Soto. While in jail, Speer conspired with his other brother, Brian Womble, over the phone to kill Adan and Enriqueta who were to be witnesses in the burglary trial. In the early hours of May 25, 2002, Brian Womble broke into the Soto residence and shot Adan and Enriqueta while they slept with their baby boy between them. Enriqueta awoke in pain, not knowing she had been shot and called 911 after failing to wake Adan. Enriqueta, then 30, was permanently debilitated. Adan, 42, died with his arms around his son. Two other children were asleep in the Soto residence at the time. Brian Womble was also sentenced to death for his participation in this crime.

Paul Speer Other News

On March 14, 2002, Speer and his half-brother Chris Womble broke into an apartment on West Glenrosa Avenue in Phoenix.¹ Adan and Enriqueta Soto lived there with their three children. No one was at home during the break-in, but a neighbor saw two men trying to open an apartment window and called the police.

¶ 3 Shortly after the neighbor’s call, two men were seen walking toward a nearby apartment complex. Residents of that complex directed police to the apartment of Sabrina and Bill Womble, Speer’s mother and stepfather. Speer was found beneath a couch; Chris was found in a closet. After the two were arrested, the officers searched the apartment and found items belonging to the Sotos.

The Plot

¶ 4 Speer was held at the Madison Street jail and made telephone calls to family and friends while in custody. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) recorded outgoing prisoner phone calls. Most of Speer’s calls were to Al Heitzman, with whom Speer’s half-brother Brian Womble lived. Al or Brian would occasionally then make three-way calls to others.

¶ 5 On March 18, Speer asked Al to post his $7,000 bond, stating that he could not win his case unless he could talk to the victims and convince them not to testify. On April 28, Speer told Al about a plea offer of 6.5 to 13 years imprisonment. Al connected Bill Womble to the call; Speer asked if Bill’s brother would be willing to post bond.

¶ 6 Speer called again on April 29, asking Brian to sell his two handguns to raise the bond money. Brian responded that he needed the guns to commit suicide. Speer said that Brian’s problems were minor compared to Speer’s. Speer also said that instead of accepting a plea offer he wanted to convince the witnesses not to testify.

¶ 7 After Brian said he did not have the money for bond, Speer asked, do “you think you can ․ handle some shit for me?” Brian responded that he “probably could” but “if I do that, I’ll be dead too.” Speer suggested that Brian offer the victims his .357 handgun as an inducement to not testify. Speer called again and told Brian that if the witnesses testified, he would get the maximum sentence.

¶ 8 On April 30, Brian told Speer that he would retrieve his guns from Al’s safe deposit box. Speer told Brian to tell the victims that Speer was not involved. Brian said that he instead would employ “Plan B.” Brian later asked Speer if he should talk to the victims or do his other plan. Answering his own question, Brian said he was going to do his other plan. Speer replied, “Okay. Yeah, yeah. Go ahead.”

¶ 9 On May 5, Speer spoke with Brian and Al at length. Initially, Speer tried to pressure Al into posting the bond money by warning that Brian might do something violent. Al, however, refused, and Speer replied that he and Brian would have “to go to Plan B.”

¶ 10 On May 13, Speer called Brian to talk about “Plan B” and told him to “make sure you take care of everybody in that house ․ there’s only like two.” Brian said he needed a silencer. Speer reiterated that Brian could do the job alone, as there were only “two people in there.” Speer again reminded Brian that “everything in there has to go.”

¶ 11 On May 17, Brian proposed that he break into the apartment and wait for the Sotos to come home. Speer suggested instead that Brian pose as a police officer who needed to take photos for the upcoming trial. Brian again told Speer that he had retrieved his guns; Speer said, “make sure you talk to both people.” Brian said that he had been to the complex and staked it out. Speer said, “Handle business fool, alright?”

¶ 12 On May 19, Speer called Brian again. They referred to a “surprise birthday party,” and Speer said it would be a waste of a party if Brian did not get both people. Brian told Speer that he now had a silencer and described the effect his gun would have on the Sotos.

¶ 13 On May 24, Al told Speer that Brian was severely depressed. Speer then asked Brian, “Is it pretty sure you’re going to ․ you’ll be able to get it running tonight?” Speer also told him to make sure to throw away the evidence. Speer again asked Brian, “I don’t have nothing to worry about, about you getting the car together, right?”

¶ 14 Speer and Brian then called Bill Womble and asked if anyone had talked to Sabrina about the burglary trial. Speer reiterated to Bill that Sabrina was on medication at the time and therefore should not remember anything. Speer later asked Brian whether the “car window” was down when he checked it. Brian replied that “there’s always a ․ way for ․ water to squeeze in.” Speer urged that the plan be executed that night.

The Murder

¶ 15 On May 25, 2002, at 3:00 a.m., the Sotos returned home from a party. At approximately 5:00 a.m., Enriqueta placed a 911 call. When EMTs arrived, they found Enriqueta on the living room couch; she had been shot, but her wounds were not fatal. An EMT found Adan lying in bed with his arm around an infant. Adan was dead from a gunshot wound; the infant was unharmed.

¶ 16 When police arrived, they found the screen for the front window to the apartment removed. Brian’s palm prints were later identified on the screen.

The Aftermath

¶ 17 On the day after the murder, Speer called Brian and asked him if he got “the car running” and fixed “both parts.” Brian said, “Yep, perfect.” Speer told Brian that he should leave for Nevada and that he needed to “get rid of those [engine parts] cause I don’t want the ․ grease getting all over ․ my room.” Speer and Brian called Bill; Speer told Bill that he could be out of jail in four months and that Bill had raised some “rioters.”

¶ 18 Speer called Sabrina the next day. Speer told her that anything Brian had said was the result of drugs. Sabrina said that the Sotos had been murdered. Speer tried to quiet her and told her that if she had to testify she should say that she was on pills at the time of the arrest and remembered nothing.

¶ 19 On June 10, Speer called Brian. Brian said that one of the Sotos was still alive, but Speer said that he was not worried. On June 19, Speer sent a letter to Brian reminding him to get rid of the “engine parts” and his shoes. When police later searched Brian’s bedroom, they found the letter and a book on silencers.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1157059.html

Anthony Spears Arizona Death Row

Anthony Spears was sentenced to death by the State of Arizona for a robbery and murder. According to court documents Anthony Spears was told by his girlfriend that she was coming to town, what the girlfriend did not know is that Spears was living with another woman. When the girlfriend arrived she was brought out to the desert and murdered. Spears proceeded to take money from her bank account and charge money to her credit card. Anthony Spears would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

Arizona Death Row Inmate List

Anthony Spears 2021 Information

ASPC Florence, Central Unit
PO Box 8200
ANTHONY M. SPEARS 097352
Florence, AZ 85132
United States

Anthony Spears More News

Jeanette Beaulieu, the victim, was a 38 year old single woman. She knew Spears, who lived near San Diego, and considered him her “boyfriend”. Apparently unbeknownst to Jeanette, Spears was living with a girlfriend named Joann in California. In December 1991, Jeanette took family leave from her employer. On December 31, she purchased a one-way airplane ticket for Spears to come to Phoenix on January 2, 1992. Spears brought with him his 9mm Beretta handgun. After Spears arrived in Phoenix, Jeanette purchased a sleeping bag, withdrew $1,700 from an ATM, and had the title to her truck notarized. She later used a charge card for a cash advance of $500. On Saturday afternoon, January 4, Spears called Joann and told her that he would be driving back to California. When he arrived, he had with him five guns that had belonged to Jeanette, two sleeping bags, and almost $1,000 in cash, and was driving Jeanette’s truck. On January 19, Jeanette’s body was discovered in a desert area, having been shot through the head with a medium- or large-caliber bullet. Near where the body was found, officers found a shiny 9mm shell casing, which was later identified as having been fired from Spears’ 9mm Beretta.

Anthony Spears Other News

Defendant lived near San Diego, California with his girlfriend Joann. Defendant had no income, so Joann supported him. Defendant had another female acquaintance in Phoenix named Jeanette (the victim) whom he had visited several times. Jeanette referred to defendant as her boyfriend and talked about their future plans together.

The state presented evidence that, in late December 1991, Jeanette apparently began getting ready to take a trip with defendant. She had her 1984 Dodge Rampage truck serviced on December 27. Shortly thereafter, she requested an extended family leave from her employer. On January 2, 1992, defendant flew from San Diego to Phoenix, using a one-way plane ticket that Jeanette had purchased for him. Before leaving California, defendant told Joann that he was going to Phoenix to work on some airplanes for 3 or 4 days. Defendant brought a 9mm Beretta handgun with him to Phoenix.

The day that defendant arrived in Phoenix, Jeanette used her Mastercard to get a $700 cash advance, and she bought a watch and sleeping bag at Target. The next day, January 3, she got a $1000 cash advance using her Mastercard and a $500 cash advance using her Discover card. Later that day, defendant accompanied Jeanette to the bank where she had the title to her truck notarized, which made the title readily transferable. No evidence indicates that Jeanette was alive after January 3.

On January 4, defendant wrote the following on a notepad that he kept on his gun cabinet: “To anticipate death is worse than death itself. Only a matter of time.” That same day he drove back to California in Jeanette’s truck and arrived at Joann’s around 10:30 p.m. Defendant told Joann that he bought the truck from an older couple for $3000. Upon his arrival, he had approximately 5 guns, some of which *283 matched those belonging to Jeanette, two sleeping bags, and almost $1000 in cash. Defendant immediately purchased a gun cabinet upon his return. He put his 9mm Beretta in the cabinet, and it remained there until police seized it on January 25.

On January 19, a family was target shooting in a desert area near Ellsworth and Elliot Roads in Maricopa County when they discovered Jeanette’s body and notified the police. Jeanette was wearing the same shirt she had on when a bank camera photographed her on January 3. The autopsy revealed that Jeanette had died from a gunshot wound to the back of her head with a medium or large caliber bullet. Based on the decomposition of her body and the weather conditions, the medical examiner opined that she could have been dead for 2 to 3 weeks by the time her body was discovered. On January 30, 11 days after Jeanette’s body was found, police discovered at the scene a shiny 9mm shell casing later identified as having been fired from defendant’s 9mm Beretta handgun.

While searching Jeanette’s home, the police discovered that her truck was missing. They also found a TV Guide open to January 3 and a receipt for the plane ticket that Jeanette had purchased for defendant. After getting defendant’s name from the receipt, the police traced him to the San Diego area. On January 24, the Mesa Police Department telephoned the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to advise them that Jeanette was dead, her truck had been stolen, and defendant was a possible suspect. The Mesa police later sent an “attempt to locate” facsimile to San Diego confirming the phone conversation. The San Diego County sheriff arranged for surveillance of defendant’s apartment complex. The deputies took defendant into custody when he arrived home on January 25 driving Jeanette’s truck. Upon his arrest, defendant claimed to have a valid title to the truck in the glove compartment, but a brief search revealed none. Mesa police officers later processed the truck, and they in fact found in the glove compartment the title that Jeanette had notarized on January 3, and on the back of that document defendant’s name was written in the space designated for the purchaser to whom the title was being reassigned. Jeanette signed the back of the title in blue ink on January 3 in the presence of the notary, and defendant’s name was written in black ink and dated January 1. At the time of his arrest, defendant had not registered the truck in California.

The State of Arizona charged defendant with one count of first degree murder and one count of theft. At trial, defendant, through counsel, denied any involvement in the murder and theft. At the end of the state’s case, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal for the theft and first degree murder charges, and the trial court denied both motions. Defendant then rested without testifying or presenting any evidence. On December 9, 1992, the 12-member jury unanimously found defendant guilty of theft and premeditated first degree murder. The verdicts of guilty were signed by the jury foreperson, Janet M. Kovach. The jury was polled, and the jury collectively and each juror individually responded yes to the question put by the clerk: “Are these your true verdicts?” See rule 23.4, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The trial court held an aggravation/mitigation hearing and found one aggravating factor that defendant committed the murder in expectation of pecuniary gain. The court found that the only mitigating circumstance was defendant’s lack of a prior felony record. However, the trial judge also assigned some cumulative mitigating value to the following factors: love of family, good conduct in court and while incarcerated, military service, and psychological profile. The trial judge concluded that the mitigation presented was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency and sentenced defendant to death for the murder and 4 years’ imprisonment for the theft, to be served concurrently.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1996/cr-93-0139-ap-2.html