b. Relatively Minor Participation.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

i. Basic Principles.

(1) Statutory.

(a) A.R.S. § 13-703(G)(3) provides that it shall be a mitigating circumstance that “[t]he defendant was legally accountable for the conduct of another under the provisions of section 13-303, but his participation was relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to prosecution.”

(b) The Court has quoted this subsection. E.g., Murray, 184 Ariz. at 39, 43.

(2) Statutory and Nonstatutory Mitigation.

(a) In Dickens, the Court found relatively minor participation, in the guise of felony-murder liability, as nonstatutory mitigation after rejecting it as statutory mitigation. 187 Ariz. at 25.

(3) Burden of Proof.

(a) The defendant has the burden of proving relatively minor participation. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. at 173.

ii. Specific Circumstances: Statutory Mitigation.

(1) Given Weight as Mitigation.

• As discussed in Gillies, Encinas had been given a life sentence in part because his participation in the murder was less than his accomplices though still substantial. 135 Ariz. at 515-16 (felony-murder).

• As discussed in Gillies, Alonzo Mata did not receive the death penalty in part because he was not the actual killer though he did have substantial participation. 135

...