Breaking News Stories

Court reinstates death penalty for man who killed University of Arizona professor

On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty for a man believed to have murdered University of Arizona music professor Roy Johnson in 1995. The judge said Beau Greene was sentenced to death under the law of the time that those who committed murder for money were entitled to ultimate punishment.(File photo)

On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty for a man believed to have murdered University of Arizona music professor Roy Johnson in 1995.

In a unanimous decision, the judge said that Bo Green was sentenced to death under the law of the time that those who committed murder for money were entitled to final punishment. acknowledged that the provision of the law was subsequently repealed by the Arizona Legislature.

However, they concluded there was no evidence that legislators intended to make that change retroactively.

The court also dismissed Greene’s argument that it would be wrong to execute him now for something lawmakers decided should no longer be considered when determining the motive for the crime.

“Apart from the motive for the murder, Greene’s actions remain subject to the death penalty, and his actions in Johnson’s murder continue to fall under the narrow category of most serious crimes,” William said in court. Justice Montgomery wrote. “Given that Greene’s sentence met the penal goals of deterrence and retaliation, it is our considered judgment that his sentence was proportionate to the murder of Johnson.”

Friday’s ruling does not end the legal dispute. There are still parallel challenges unfolding in the federal court system over his other legal claims, such as whether he was denied effective legal assistance.

According to court records, Johnson was last seen on the night of February 28, 1995, leaving the Green Valley Presbyterian Church where he was giving an organ recital.

Green, who admitted to using stimulants for several days straight and was suffering from withdrawal symptoms, said Johnson approached him and offered to pay for the oral sex. , Green said he was “freaked out” and punched Johnson in the head several times.

He then put Johnson in the back of the car and drove to the wash, where he dumped the body and drove off. Green then realized he needed the money, so he went back to the washroom, approached the corpse, and stole Johnson’s wallet.

Green then continued to squander using Johnson’s credit card. He was arrested at his friend’s house a few days later.

He was eventually sentenced to death.

In 2020, he filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief.

Central to this is the fact that lawmakers changed the list of “aggravating factors” for the death penalty law in 2019.

Under Arizona law, murder itself does not automatically impose the death penalty. Instead, jurors are asked whether there was a previous conviction for another crime that could carry the death penalty, whether the defendant was on probation, whether the victim was a police officer, and whether the crime was “particularly heinous.” and committed in a brutal, depraved way.

The 1996 sentencing list also included language allowing the death penalty if the crime was committed in anticipation of something of monetary value. That was one of the factors leading to the death sentence.

However, the current version has been narrowed down to include only the circumstances of the murder for hire.

The Supreme Court concluded that it was erroneous.

Montgomery begins with the fact that there is nothing in the 2019 amendment to suggest lawmakers meant the changes were retroactive, Montgomery wrote. Without such a language, he wrote, a new language would only be a promising one.

Green also argued that his sentence violated Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. This indicates that lawmakers no longer believe that certain acts deserve the death penalty.

Montgomery objected.

He said lawmakers ruled out motive as a specific factor authorizing the death penalty, but did not enact legislation to categorically exempt him and his deeds from punishment.

“Neither did the legislature refrain from imposing the death penalty on defendants who committed similar crimes in similar circumstances to Greene,” writes Montgomery. “The financial benefits of green are move Congress did not eliminate the consideration of Johnson’s murder, as it may no longer be taken into account by jurors when deciding whether to pass a death sentence. action killed Johnson. “


Leave a Reply