Arthur Dennis Rutherford

Case identifiers

• Name: Arthur Dennis Rutherford
• DC number: 105314
• Florida Department of Corrections current facility: Florida State Prison
• Case number (Santa Rosa County): 8500476
• Offense date: 08/22/1985
• Initial reception: 05/27/83
• County: SANTA ROSA

Background

Arthur Dennis Rutherford was a white male. He was born 03/16/49 and was 57 at the time of his execution. His listed physical characteristics included brown hair, green eyes, height 5' 10", and weight 211.

Rutherford was described as a Vietnam veteran and a handyman. He was described as having jittery nerves, nightmares, and night sweats since his service in Vietnam. His alcohol use increased after experiencing war. Medical experts diagnosed him with “an anxiety disorder” resulting from his time in Vietnam, described as similar to post traumatic stress disorder. He was also diagnosed as an alcoholic.

Rutherford was described as having maintained his innocence throughout proceedings. He asserted that a witness in the case had confessed to the crime, and the courts had continuously rejected that claim along with his challenges to the lethal injection process as cruel and unusual punishment.

The offence

Victim

• Victim: Stella Salamon
• Age: 63
• Description: a widow
• Nationality noted in the material: Australia
• Place in which she lived: Santa Rosa County, Florida
• Family status noted in the material: she lived alone in Santa Rosa County with her two Pekingese dogs since her husband had died unexpectedly from a heart attack two years earlier; she had no family in this country other than a sister-in-law in Massachusetts

Events leading to the death

Rutherford was described as being hired by Salamon to do odd jobs, including replacing her sliding glass patio doors. Salamon expressed concern about him to her friends.

The material described that Salamon had replaced the sliding glass doors because they did not close and lock properly. She told her long-time friend and next-door neighbor Beverly Elkins that the unlocked doors made her nervous and that she wondered if Rutherford had intentionally made the doors so that she could not lock them. Salamon also said Rutherford kept coming to her house and acted as though he was “casing the joint.”

On the morning of August 21, 1985, Rutherford asked Harold (Attaway) to come along with him when he went to repair the doors he had installed for Salamon; when they got to her house, Salamon told them she had those doors replaced. Harold left to get money to give Salamon as a refund on the doors; Rutherford stayed behind.

Around noon that day, Salamon received a call from her friend Lois LaVaugh. Salamon told LaVaugh that she was nervous because Rutherford had been at her house for “quite awhile.” LaVaugh drove over and found Rutherford sitting shirtless on Salamon’s porch. Rutherford left after LaVaugh arrived, and Salamon told her that Rutherford “really has made me nervous” and had been sitting around on her couch.

On the next morning (August 22), Rutherford and Harold went to retrieve the old doors from Salamon’s garage. Rutherford told Harold: “If I reach for that gun, you'll know I mean business.”

The material also described a plan to obtain money by forcing a woman to write a check and then putting her in the bathtub. It included testimony and statements that Rutherford had discussed the plan before and after Salamon’s death and had explained that if the woman initially refused to make out the check, he would “get her by that arm and she would sign.” The material stated that Rutherford bragged he would do the crime but not the time. It also stated that none of three men reported the plans to the authorities.

Check cashing and forged payment

The material described that Rutherford visited Mary Frances Heaton, a woman who sometimes baby-sat for his children and with whom he had once lived for a few months. Rutherford showed Heaton one of Salamon’s checks and asked her to fill it out. Heaton could not read or write other than to sign her name, so she called for her thirteen-year-old niece, Elizabeth.

Rutherford promised Elizabeth money if she would fill out the check as instructed. Elizabeth filled out the check making it payable to Heaton, but she did not sign anyone’s name on it. Rutherford told Heaton he owed her money for work he had done for him and asked her to accompany him.

Rutherford took Heaton to the Santa Rosa State Bank, gave her the check, and sent her into the bank to cash it. Because of the blank signature line, the teller refused to cash the check; Heaton returned to Rutherford’s van and told him.

The material described that Rutherford responded by driving them to nearby woods, where he took out a wallet, checkbook, and credit cards wrapped in a shirt, and threw the bundle into the trees. He also signed Salamon’s name onto the check, and then they returned to the bank.

Outside the bank, Elizabeth watched Rutherford endorse Heaton’s name on the check. It described that Rutherford misspelled Heaton’s name, scratched it out, and corrected it. Heaton re-entered the bank; this time she successfully cashed the check and left with $2,000 in one hundred dollar bills. Rutherford gave Heaton $500 of those funds; Heaton gave Elizabeth $5 for filling out the check.

Taking the babysitter and attempting to cash

The material also described that Rutherford showed one of Salamon’s checks to a woman who sometimes baby-sat for his children and that with whom he had once lived for a few months. It stated that the babysitter was unable to read or write other than to sign her name and called for her thirteen-year-old niece Elizabeth.

It further described that Rutherford took the babysitter to the Santa Rosa State Bank, sent her into the bank to cash the check, and then drove them to the nearby woods when the teller refused due to the blank signature line. It then described that Rutherford signed Salamon’s name onto the check, and after a misspelling and correction of the babysitter’s endorsement, she successfully cashed it for $2,000.

Murder scene discovery

At 6:30 p.m., a neighbor, Beverly Elkins, tried to contact Salamon by phone but got no answer. Elkins went to Salamon’s house, saw her car outside, and realized Salamon must still be at home. Elkins rang the front doorbell. After receiving no answer, she went around back and through the sliding glass doors saw that the television was on and that the normally calm dogs were jumping around excitedly. Elkins retrieved a spare key, met up with another neighbor, and the two women let themselves into Salamon’s home.

They entered through the carport door, heard water running, and followed the sound to a little-used guest bathroom. There they found Salamon’s naked body floating in the water that filled the tub to overflowing.

Condition of the victim and cause

Crime scene investigators found three fingerprints on the handle of the sliding door to the bathtub, one fingerprint on the tile wall of the tub, and a palm print on the window sill inside the tub with the fingers up and over the sill as though the person had grabbed it. All were later identified as Rutherford’s. Blood was spattered on the bathroom walls and floor.

An expert described that the spatter pattern indicated blows occurred while Salamon was sitting or kneeling on the bathroom floor.

The material described that Salamon’s lungs showed signs of manual asphyxiation, apparently from someone covering her nose and mouth. It described that she had been viciously beaten, with bruises on her nose, chin, and mouth and a cut on the inside of her lip consistent with a hand being held forcefully over her face. It described bruises and scrapes on her arms and knees and a broken left arm at the elbow.

It described three large wounds on her head: two consistent with being struck with a blunt object or having her head slammed down; and the other, described as a puncture going all the way to the bone, appeared from a blow with a claw hammer or screwdriver. It stated her skull was fractured from one side to the other. It stated that none of the injuries was the actual cause of her death and that she had water in the lungs, showing she was still alive when Rutherford stripped off her clothes and placed her in the bathtub to drown.

The medical examiner said Salamon died from drowning or asphyxiation.

Investigation

Police found Rutherford’s fingerprints and palm prints in the bathroom where Salamon was killed.

The material described crime scene investigators arriving and identifying prints described above.

Arrest

The material described that Rutherford was arrested after getting assistance from friend Harold to cash as $2,000 check on Salamon's account. It also described that he had done carpentry work for Salamon.

Trial

Charges and proceedings

Rutherford was indicted on charges of first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm.

The material described that during his trial he moved for a mistrial based on a discovery violation by the prosecution. The first trial included testimony from two witnesses that Rutherford had told them he planned to kill a woman to get money. The prosecutor did not advise Rutherford’s counsel of the nature of their testimony as required by the trial court’s discovery order.

It described that after the jury found Rutherford guilty and recommended death, the trial court granted Rutherford’s motion for a mistrial, finding the discovery violation was “knowing, and therefore willful.”

After a change of venue to Walton County, Rutherford was retried.

Witnesses and testimony about the check

Two witnesses, Elizabeth Ward and her mother Mary Heaton, testified that Rutherford asked for their help in cashing a $2,000 check on Salamon’s bank account. The material described Rutherford forging Salamon’s name on the check and taking Heaton to a bank, where she cashed the check.

In the later narrative from the material, the names were given as Mary Frances Heaton and Elizabeth; the material described that Rutherford promised Elizabeth money if she filled out the check as instructed, that she filled it out making it payable to Heaton without signing anyone’s name, and that the teller refused to cash the check due to the blank signature line before Rutherford signed Salamon’s name and the check was cashed successfully.

Evidence and alleged statements before and after the murder

The material described that Rutherford told Harold that he planned to kill a woman and place her body in her bathtub to make her death look like an accident. It also stated that Rutherford told a longtime business associate Sherman Pittman that he was going to get money by forcing a woman to write him a check and then putting her in the bathtub and that if the woman refused Rutherford explained: “get her by that arm and she would sign.” It also described Rutherford told Attaway again about his homicidal plan about a week later and told his uncle they could get easy money by knocking a woman Rutherford worked for in the head.

A witness described that Rutherford told Johnny Perritt he had “bumped the old lady off” and showed him $1500 in cash, wanted Johnny to hold $1400, and said he hit the “old lady” in the head with a hammer, stripped her, and put her in the bathtub. Johnny refused to take the cash and his mother later notified police.

The material also stated that co-workers and associates testified that Rutherford told them of his intentions before the killing and bragged of it afterward.

Verdicts and jury recommendation

• First trial (Santa Rosa County): the material described Rutherford being found guilty and the jury recommending death by an eight-to-four vote, followed by the judge granting a mistrial due to discovery violations by the state.
• Retrial (Walton County): the material described Rutherford being found guilty on all charges. The jury recommended death by a seven-to-five vote.

Sentencing

The trial judge sentenced Rutherford to death following a 7-5 jury recommendation. It also described the trial judge sentencing Rutherford to death for the murder count and 30 years on armed robbery.

Appeals

Florida and U.S. Supreme Court

The material described the following appellate and post-conviction procedural history and citations:

• Rutherford v. State, 545 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1989) (direct appeal)
• Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1998) (PCR)
• Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637 (Fla. 2000) (postconviction)
• Rutherford v. State, 926 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 2006) (successive postconviction)
• Rutherford v. Crosby, 385 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004) (habeas)

The material also described:

• June 16, 1989: Florida Supreme Court affirmed conviction and sentence.
• Oct. 30: U.S. Supreme Court denied appeal.
• Dec. 17, 1998: Florida Supreme Court denied appeal.
• Nov. 29, 2005: Gov. Jeb Bush signed a death warrant.
• Jan. 30, 2006: U.S. Supreme Court stayed Rutherford execution minutes before scheduled death.
• Sept. 22: Bush reinstated death warrant and scheduled execution for Oct. 18.
• Oct. 5: Appeal returned by the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed by appeals court in Atlanta.
• Oct. 6: State court rejects Rutherford's appeal.
• Oct. 12: Florida Supreme Court rejects Rutherford's appeal.
• Oct. 17: Florida Supreme Court and 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deny appeals.
• Oct. 18: U.S. Supreme Court denied two petitions and two motions for a stay of execution.

Legal challenge related to lethal injection procedures

The material described that Rutherford filed a lawsuit challenging Florida’s three-drug protocol. It described that the district court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on an alternative ground relating to delay in bringing the claim. It also described the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hill decision affecting the procedural framework for lethal-injection method challenges.

The material includes judicial opinions and procedural discussion referencing:

• Rutherford v. Crosby, 438 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2006) (prior decision vacated)
• Hill v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 2096 (2006)
• Hill v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 2915 (2006) (mem.)

The material includes extensive argument on equitable delay and the timing of filings in relation to scheduled executions.

Outcome

Arthur Dennis Rutherford was executed by lethal injection in Florida on October 18, 2006. He was pronounced dead at 6:13 p.m. at Florida State Prison. The material also described the execution occurring after the U.S. Supreme Court denied last-minute petitions to stop the execution, including petitions challenging lethal injection procedure and other issues.

Justice John Paul Stevens voted to grant a stay while others denied.

Rutherford made no final statement before his execution and declined to take a sedative before receiving the injection. He was described as opening and closing his eyes several times and stopping moving at 6:02 p.m., with officials calling time of death at 6:13 p.m.

Aftermath

Final meal and last visits

Rutherford had a final meal of fried freshwater catfish, fried green tomatoes, fried eggplant, hush puppies and sweet tea. The material described last visits with more than a dozen relatives on Wednesday morning including his father, children, grandchildren, sisters and brothers, and it described that none of his relatives attended the execution.

Protest and witnesses

The material described that Gainesville Citizens for Alternatives to the Death Penalty and other opponents held a vigil across from the prison in protest, with about 50 anti-death penalty protesters holding a vigil across the highway. It also described that there were 24 witnesses to the lethal injection and that no friends or family of Salamon were among the witnesses described in the material.

Other details

Prior convictions and sentencing details listed

The material listed convictions and sentencing details as:

• Convictions: “1ST DG MUR/PREMED, ROBB. GUN/DEADLY WPN”
• Sentencing: 12/09/1986
• Execution scheduling context: the material described that executions resumed after a 12-year moratorium and listed counts including that Rutherford was the 62nd inmate executed in Florida since 1976.

Final words

The material stated: “Final Words: None.”

Proportions and jury vote references

The material repeatedly described jury recommendations of death:

• 8 to 4 in the first trial (before mistrial)
• 7 to 5 in the retrial

Verbatim quotations (as included in the material)

• Rutherford to Johnny Perritt: “bumped the old lady off”
• Rutherford said: “old lady”
• Witness testimony described Rutherford’s plan explanation: “get her by that arm and she would sign.”
• In the material discussing Rutherford’s trial remarks: “I did not steal [the check], why didn't you steal it?”
• Rutherford threatened the prosecutor at the penalty phase (as quoted): “You are going to get it.”
• One stated remark about conviction being rejected as a “joke” (as described as quoted): Rutherford described a prior charge as “a joke.”
• Salamon’s statements in the material included: “quite awhile” and “really has made me nervous”
• Another quotation in the material described Rutherford spoke about: “casing the joint”