Arizona v. Rushing

(1) Whether the Supreme Court of Arizona erred in holding that the introduction of a defendant"s past violent conduct in the penalty phase of a capital trial automatically requires that jurors be informed about the defendant"s parole ineligibility pursuant to the due process clause as interpreted in Simmons v. South Carolina and its progeny; and (2) whether Simmons applies in a sentencing proceeding for capital murder committed by a defendant already in prison, a context demonstrating that incarceration is not a sufficient means of preventing future violence by that defendant.