William Herrera

Case details

Defendant: William Herrera Victim: Caucasian (Deputy Sheriff Vernon Marconnet) Victim role: Police officer

The offence

On the afternoon of June 30, 1988, William Herrera and his three sons, William Jr., Mickel and Ruben, were drinking beer with Mickel's girlfriend, Mary Cardenas, near a canal in south Phoenix.

Deputy Sheriff Vernon Marconnet drove up in his patrol car and asked the group for identification. William Herrera refused, and argued with and pushed the deputy.

Deputy Marconnet put Mr. Herrera in the rear of the patrol car and called for backup on his portable radio. William Jr. and Mickel began struggling with the deputy while Ruben let his father out of the patrol car.

Mr. Herrera joined the fight. Mickel managed to take the deputy's revolver from him. Mickel ordered the deputy to lie on the ground and the deputy complied.

William Jr. and his father then urged Mickel to shoot Deputy Marconnet. Mickel fired the revolver once, hitting the deputy in the head and killing him.

The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of kidnapping and first-degree felony murder and was sentenced to death for the murder.

Investigation

Deputy Marconnet called for backup on his portable radio when he put Mr. Herrera in the rear of the patrol car.

Trial

Presiding Judge: Norman Hall Prosecutor: Noel Levy Start of Trial: September 5, 1989 Verdict: October 5, 1989

Sentencing

Sentencing: December 21, 1989 Aggravating Circumstances: Especially heinous/cruel/depraved Mitigating Circumstances: Age of the defendant (20 years old)

The aggravating circumstance (F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) was upheld.

The Court found that although the defendant did not actually kill the victim, he did order his sons to do so. The Court found that the victim's death was the result intended by defendant, and that his participation in the murder was substantial and intentional. Assessment of aggravating circumstances was still appropriate in his case, though the aggravators are based upon his son's conduct.

The Court held that evidence of aggravating circumstances had to come from defendant's own trial or aggravation/mitigation hearing. The Court found no reversible error in the evidence of cruelty coming from the son's trial.

Aggravating-circumstance findings (F)(6) — cruelty and pain/anguish

Cruel: Upheld. Mental Anguish: Found.

The victim was a police officer who was questioning the defendants when they attacked him. The victim was forced after a struggle to lie on the ground helpless as his own gun was used to shoot him.

The Court found that the victim suffered mental anguish and "that defendant was actively engaged in causing that pain and anguish." The Court found that the victim shielded himself from the gun with his hands and "heard defendant command his son to `Shoot him.'"

The Court further found defendant's intent for the victim to be killed by his son was "manifestly clear by [his] statements and manner at the time [the victim] was killed." Further, defendant's participation in the murder was "substantial and intentional."

Physical Pain: Found.

The Court determined that defendant actively engaged in inflicting physical pain on the victim. The victim was physically overpowered by defendant and his sons, was forced to lie on the ground, received a painful gash in his forehead, and was struck by defendant's knee.

Heinous or Depraved: Not addressed.

Appeals

Arizona Supreme Court — automatic, direct appeal

This was defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Published opinions:

• State v. Herrera (Jr.), 176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d 131 (1993).
• State v. William Herrera, Sr., 176 Ariz. 9, 859 P.2d 119 (1993).

Procedural posture

Aggravating circumstances: (F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) — UPHELD

Cruel: Upheld. Mental Anguish: Found. Physical Pain: Found.

Mitigating-circumstance findings

The Court found that there were no mitigating circumstances sufficient to call for leniency.

The Court found the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances: (G)(3) Minor Participation.

Judgment on appeal (for the defendant)

Convictions and sentences affirmed.

Outcome

Sentence vacated May 20, 2002.

Other details

The record described companion/co-defendant cases the reader may also want to see:

• State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d 131 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 951, 114 S. Ct. 398, 126 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1993).
• State v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 850 P.2d 100 (1993).
• State v. William Herrera, Jr., 176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d 131 (1993) (with the additional language about mitigating and aggravating circumstances in that co-defendant’s appeal).

A separate procedural description within the provided material stated that another defendant (William Herrera Jr.) had been convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping and had been sentenced to death for the murder, and that his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court followed.