Supreme Court Affirms Death Penalty in Notorious 1989 Murder Case

The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence of Christopher Spreitz, convicted of the 1989 rape and murder of Ivy Mae Atherton. The ruling, delivered on Monday, dismissed Spreitz’s arguments that his history of substance abuse had not been adequately considered in determining his sentence.

Justice William Montgomery, writing for the court, stated that their previous affirmation of the death penalty stood firm. The Supreme Court revisited the case due to a federal appeals court’s indication that the lower court had misapplied the standards regarding mitigating circumstances.

Spreitz’s case returned for further analysis, leading the justices to scrutinize all factors surrounding the murder. Ultimately, they concluded that the original decision to impose the death penalty was warranted.

On May 18, 1989, Atherton, who was also known as Ruby Reid, left a Tucson bar and was later found dead in the desert three days later. Initial police engagement with Spreitz on the night of the murder revealed blood on his clothing, which he attributed to an unrelated fight.

Spreitz claimed to have met Atherton that night and stated that following an argument, he raped her and fatally struck her with a rock. In contrast, prosecutors contended he abducted her, drove her out, and then committed the violent acts of rape and murder.

During the trial, Spreitz’s defense team requested a lesser charge, emphasizing his intoxication and lack of intent to kill. However, the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, leading to a death penalty recommendation from the presiding judge, William Sherill, who emphasized the brutality of the crime.

In Arizona, a conviction for first-degree murder alone does not automatically result in a death sentence. The law requires the presence of at least one aggravating circumstance to justify such a penalty.

The court found sufficient aggravating circumstances in this case, noting the prolonged suffering caused to Atherton during the attack. Montgomery’s opinion highlighted the significant nature of the cruelty involved as a decisive factor against any mitigating influences, such as Spreitz’s substance abuse history.

The ruling effectively affirms the severity of the penalty, signifying the judicial system’s stance on the crimes committed. The court concluded that mitigating evidence did not outweigh the evidence of extreme cruelty.