Barbaric dad set sleeping daughter, two, on fire in desert in 'heinous' act
Murderer Shawn Grell, 50, killed his two-year-old daughter in the most "heinous, cruel and depraved way" after setting her alight in the desert, according to the Arizona Supreme Court
A barbaric and "cruel" dad who set fire to his two-year-old daughter while she was sleeping in the desert has died in jail. Murderer Shawn Grell, 50, was discovered by prison officers in the Arizona Prison Complex on April 19. No details were disclosed about his death.
'All inmate deaths are investigated in consultation with the county medical examiner's office,' the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry said in a statement.
The killer had spent 26 years in jail after he picked up his daughter, Kristen Salem, from childcare on December 2, 1999, and took her to McDonald's. After they left, he told her they would see Christmas lights, but he drove to Target to purchase a petrol can and some diesel.
Grell drove to a desert in Arizona, laid Kristen on the ground, poured diesel on her and set her on fire, according to harrowing court documents. She briefly woke up and stumbled before falling to the ground.
After the "heinous, cruel and depraved" killing of his daughter, he drove to a nearby store and purchased some beer. Grell drove for hours before eventually calling police and turning himself in. He confessed to killing her the next day, with no trace of emotion.
'I took the gasoline and I poured it on her,' he told investigators during a police interview. 'I took the match and threw it on her."
The court ruled the horrendous killing was committed in an 'especially heinous, cruel, and depraved manner' and Grell was charged with first-degree murder and sentenced to the death penalty.
However, this was overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2013, which said his death sentence was "cruel and unusual punishment."
It came after the Supreme Court in 2022 determined that it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment to administer the death penalty to people with "mental deficiencies."
'Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct,' the Supreme Court ruled.
It comes after another father allegedly smashed his one-year-old daughter's head on the floor in a drunken rage because she wouldn't stop crying, according to police.
Suresh Dore, 40, was taken into custody by authorities on Sunday after he was accused of murdering his daughter during a violent drunken outburst.
Police in India allege the man killed the little girl by smashing her head on the floor after he was irritated by her crying. The suspect tried to flee the scene but was quickly captured by police.
"If he had fled, it would have been difficult to nab him as he doesn't own a mobile phone and is a daily wager," police inspector Prasad Pandhare said. Dore, who has four children from three wives, has been accused previously of violence in the home, police say.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled
The Supreme Court will consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled, according an order released early on Friday after an apparent technological glitch. The justices' action comes in an appeal from Alabama, which is seeking to execute Joseph Clifton Smith. He was sentenced to death for killing a man in 1997. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and thus can't be executed. When it's argued in the fall, the case could be the first in which the Supreme Court cuts back on its 23-year-old landmark ruling that barred the death penalty for people who are intellectually disabled. At issue is what happens in borderline cases, when scores on IQ tests are slightly above 70, which is widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. In 2014 and 2017, the court somewhat eased the burden of showing intellectual disability in those cases. It's the second time in about a year that an online error resulted in an early release from the high court. An opinion in an abortion case was accidently posted on its website a day early in June 2024. The court's landmark opinion overturning abortion as a constitutional right also went out early, though those circumstances were different because the case was leaked. This time, the court released a set of orders set for Monday after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
WASHINGTON, June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins v. Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. The issue that the court will consider in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence
"An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico's, it is founded on a third-party's criminal use of the company's product," Justice Elena Kagan wrote. The decision landed against a backdrop of strained diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico. President Donald Trump wants Mexico to do more to stop illegal drugs from flowing into the United States and Mexico wants to stop illegal arms from flowing south. Mexico has maintained tighter regulations on firearms than its neighbor to the north. The case was also the first time the Supreme Court ruled on a 2005 law that shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed by third parties. An exception in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act allows suits if a gunmaker is accused of knowingly violating a state or federal law. Attorneys representing Mexico argued that gun companies are "aiding and abetting" the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of high-powered firearms into Mexico through deliberate design, marketing and distribution choices. That includes doing business with dealers who repeatedly sell large quantities of guns to cartel traffickers, Mexico's counsel alleged. Firearms makers, led by Smith & Wesson Brands, said the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes after being sold, transported, and used to commit crime in Mexico involves too many steps to blame the industry. Guns made in the United States are sold to federally licensed distributors who sell them to federally licensed dealers - some of whom knowingly or negligently sell them to criminals who smuggle them into Mexico, where they end up in the hands of cartel members. Mexico's attorneys stressed that the suit was in its early stages and said Mexico should be allowed a chance to prove its allegations in court. A federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed the suit, ruling it was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms. But the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the challenge met an exception in the law and could move forward. Mexico, it said, had adequately alleged the gunmakers "aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico." Mexico was seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages, estimated in the range of $10 billion, and a court order requiring gun companies to change their practices. Lawyers for gun rights groups told the Supreme Court that Mexico's suit is an attempt to bankrupt the American firearms industry and undermine the Second Amendment. Gun violence prevention groups worried the case could make it harder to bring domestic lawsuits against the gun industry. The case is Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
