# State v. Gretzler

> Arizona Supreme Court · January 6, 1983 · 135 Ariz. 42

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632538

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Douglas Edward GRETZLER, Appellant
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 6, 1983
- **Citations:** 135 Ariz. 42; 659 P.2d 1; 1983 Ariz. LEXIS 144
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Gordon
- **Judges:** Cameron, Gordon, Holohan, Hays, Feldman
- **Cited by:** 267 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632538

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding the evidence supported trial judge’s finding of the (G)(1) factor when the defendant “used drugs continuously for a period of over nine years” and “medical testimony [showed] that this continuous use of drugs likely impaired defendant’s volitional capabilities”
- concluding defendant's mental capabilities were significantly, but only partially, impaired based on "medical testimony that this continuous use of drugs likely impaired defendant's volitional capabilities"
- holding that the “trial court correctly found” the (E)(2) aggravator “based on the defendant’s nine prior convictions for first degree murder”
- noting that “either or both” the senselessness and helplessness factors may, “together with other circum- stances present in a particular case,” lead to the conclusion that the offense was heinous or depraved

## Opinion text

GORDON, Vice Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I agree that the trial court properly found three aggravating circumstances— previous convictions of another offense for which life imprisonment or death was impossible, previous conviction of a felony involving the threat or use of violence, and that the defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. I also agree that no mitigating circumstances existed sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Therefore, I concur in the correctness of the imposition of the sentence of death in this matter. However, to be faithful to my position in State v. Clark, 126 Ariz. 428 , 616 P.2d 888 (1980), I cannot agree with the majority’s interpretation of the aggravating circumstance concerning pecuniary gain.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632538. Public record. Not legal advice.