Darrel Pandeli

Case record: Darrel Pandeli

Background

Darrel Pandeli was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and his case returned to the Arizona Supreme Court for further consideration and resentencing in light of Ring v. Arizona.

Holly Iler’s nude body was found in an alley in central Phoenix on the morning of September 24, 1993. Holly Iler had been beaten, her throat had been slashed, and her nipples had been excised after her death.

Darrel Pandeli was captured and interrogated for the murder of Holly Iler. After being captured and interrogated for that murder, he confessed to killing Holly Humphreys more than a year before the Iler murder.

Darrel Pandeli was tried separately for the murder of Holly Humphreys and was convicted of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to death for Holly Iler’s murder, but the sentence was reversed. He was sentenced to death again in a new sentencing proceeding.

The offence

Darrel Pandeli killed Holly Iler after what he claimed was an abortive sexual encounter. He slit her throat and mutilated her body. The jury found that the murder of Holly Iler was especially heinous and depraved.

Darrel Pandeli’s prior murder involved Holly Humphreys. The jury found that Pandeli had previously been convicted of the murder of Teresa Humphreys, a serious offense.

Investigation

On the morning of September 24, 1993, Holly Iler’s nude body was found in an alley in central Phoenix. She had been beaten, her throat had been slashed, and her nipples had been excised after her death.

Darrel Pandeli was captured and interrogated for the murder of Holly Iler, and he confessed to killing Holly Humphreys more than a year before the Iler murder.

Trial

Darrel Pandeli was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His automatic appeal followed.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed his death sentence in State v. Pandeli (Pandeli I), 200 Ariz. 365, 26 P.3d 1136 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 2001). In 2002, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the Arizona Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Ring II). Pandeli v. Arizona (Pandeli II), 536 U.S. 953 (2002) (mem.). The Arizona Supreme Court vacated Pandeli’s death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing before a jury. State v. Pandeli (Pandeli III), 204 Ariz. 569, 65 P.3d 950 (2003) (supp. op.).

The jury sentencing in this case commenced in February, 2006. The jury found the existence of two aggravating circumstances:

• Pandeli had previously been convicted of the murder of Teresa Humphreys, a serious offense, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2).
• Pandeli murdered Holly Iler in an especially heinous and depraved manner, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6).

The jury determined that the death penalty should be imposed after finding that the mitigation presented by Pandeli was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.

The trial court sentenced Pandeli on April 20, 2006 to death by lethal injection.

Sentencing

Aggravating circumstances found by the jury:

• (F)(2) Prior conviction for murder of Teresa Humphreys as a serious offense, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2).
• (F)(6) Especially heinous and depraved manner of the murder of Holly Iler, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6).

After finding mitigation not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, the jury determined that the death penalty should be imposed.

On April 20, 2006, the trial court sentenced Pandeli to death by lethal injection.

Appeals

This automatic appeal followed the April 20, 2006 sentencing.

A.R.S. § 13-703.04 required the Supreme Court to independently review the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the propriety of the death sentence.

Pandeli raised nine issues on appeal:

1. Did the trial court commit fundamental error by failing to rule on the admissibility of the underlying facts of the Humphreys murder before voir dire?
2. Did the trial court improperly allow the State to introduce the underlying facts of the Humphreys murder to prove the A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2) aggravating circumstance?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting in the aggravation phase photographs of Holly Iler’s body, photographs of a Confederate flag, or a photograph of Pandeli that showed his tattoos?
4. Is the A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) aggravating circumstance unconstitutionally vague and overbroad?
5. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the State to argue in the penalty phase that Pandeli knew right from wrong?
6. Did the trial court err when it allowed the State to introduce evidence of Pandeli’s prior bad acts, the underlying facts of the Humphrey’s murder, testimony by Reyna Humphreys, or a book titled “Battered Relationships” during the penalty phase?
7. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the State to argue that Pandeli failed to establish a “causal nexus” between his mitigation and the crime?
8. Did the penalty-phase jury instructions create an unconstitutional presumption of death?
9. Is the portion of Arizona’s death penalty statute that was struck down in Ring II severable from the remainder of the statute?

The Supreme Court independently found the mitigating circumstances and also evaluated the propriety of the death sentence.

Aggravating circumstances (review on appeal)

• (F)(2) Prior conviction—serious offense: Upheld. Pandeli’s 1996 prior conviction for second-degree murder was a “serious offense” supporting the (F)(2) aggravator.
• (F)(6) Especially heinous, cruel or depraved: Upheld. Heinous or depraved: Upheld based on findings that Pandeli mutilated Iler’s body and relished the murder by taking souvenirs.

Mitigating circumstances (review on appeal)

The Court independently found the following mitigating circumstances:

• Difficult childhood, including physical and sexual abuse
• Abuse of drugs and alcohol
• Mental impairment and learning disabilities
• Model prisoner
• Develop and maintain positive relationships

The Court found that Pandeli failed to establish a causal nexus between his mitigation and the crime, and therefore accorded it less weight.

Although the mitigation evidence was not insubstantial, the aggravating circumstances were also substantial, especially the fact that Pandeli had been convicted of another murder.

In light of the prior murder and the brutality of the Iler murder, the Court found the mitigation evidence was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.

Decision

Death sentence affirmed.

State v. (Darrel) Pandeli (Pandeli IV), 215 Ariz. 514, 161 P.3d 557 (2007).

Outcome

The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence.

Timeline

• September 24, 1993 — Holly Iler’s nude body was found in an alley in central Phoenix; she had been beaten, her throat had been slashed, and her nipples had been excised after her death.
• 1997 — Darrel Pandeli was convicted of the murder, and was subsequently sentenced to death.
• 2001 — The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence in State v. Pandeli (Pandeli I), 200 Ariz. 365, 26 P.3d 1136 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 2001).
• 2002 — The United States Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of Ring v. Arizona; Pandeli v. Arizona (Pandeli II), 536 U.S. 953 (2002) (mem.).
• 2003 — The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing before a jury in State v. Pandeli (Pandeli III), 204 Ariz. 569, 65 P.3d 950 (2003) (supp. op.).
• February, 2006 — The jury sentencing in this case commenced.
• April 20, 2006 — The trial court sentenced Pandeli to death by lethal injection.
• 2007 — The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence in State v. 514, 161 P.3d 557 (2007).

Other details

The Supreme Court’s aggravation and mitigation review resulted in a determination that the death penalty should be imposed after the jury found two aggravating circumstances and determined mitigation was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.

The appellate review included consideration of photographs of Holly Iler’s body, photographs of a Confederate flag, and a photograph of Pandeli that showed his tattoos.

The appellate review also included consideration of evidence of Pandeli’s prior bad acts, testimony by Reyna Humphreys, and a book titled “Battered Relationships” during the penalty phase.

The appellate review included evaluation of whether the State could argue that Pandeli failed to establish a “causal nexus” between his mitigation and the crime.

The case name and procedural posture included:

• Superior Court (Maricopa) conviction of first-degree murder and death sentence.
• Direct appeal following remand for jury sentencing due to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).