Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury found Defendant guilty of felony murder and other crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder and to prison terms on the other convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err in permitting the State's medical expert to testify; (2) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's request for an Enmund/Tison jury instruction at the aggravation phase of trial; (3) Defendant's waiver of his right to present mitigation was voluntary, knowing, and informed; and (4) the jury did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the mitigating circumstances were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. View "State v. Joseph" on Justia Law

On January 27, 2012, the Yuma County Superior Court disqualified Alejandrina Cabrera under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 38-201(C) from appearing on the ballot as a candidate for the San Luis City Council. Concluding that section 38-201(C)'s language requirement must be read "in the context of the political office at issue," the court found that Cabrera was not sufficiently proficient in English to perform as a city council member for San Luis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, in relevant part, that (1) the trial court correctly interpreted section 38-201(C); and (2) the trial court's interpretation of the statute did not unconstitutionally violate Cabrera's right to participate in government. View "Escamilla v. Cuello" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of one count of first degree burglary, four counts of aggravated assault, four counts of kidnapping, one count of theft, and one count of first degree murder. After a mistrial in the penalty phase, a second jury determined Defendant should be sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, that (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to strike prospective jurors; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a brown bag with ammunition; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct warranting reversal; and (4) the death sentence was appropriate. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of first degree burglary, kidnapping, and two counts of first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to death on both murder counts and to prison terms on the other counts. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding, among other things, (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's challenges to the State's peremptory strikes of two minority jurors; (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant's convictions; (3) the trial court did prejudicially err by admitting evidence of other acts that occurred on the weekend of the murders; (4) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for mistrial after three jurors inadvertently saw Defendant during the guilt phase exiting an elevator accompanied by law enforcement officers and wearing jail garb; and (5) the sentences were appropriate. View "State v. Hardy" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant was sentenced to death for first degree murder of a fellow inmate. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding, among other things, (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant his successive motions to continue the trial, as Defendant failed to establish prejudice from the denials; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence of premeditation; (3) the trial court did not err in permitting the State to present evidence of other bad acts Defendant had committed while incarcerated; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence that Defendant had attacked and seriously injured another inmate; and (5) the jury did not abuse its discretion in determining that death was the appropriate sentence. View "State v. VanWinkle" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of the first degree murder of his girlfriend. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding, among other things, that the trial court did not err by (1) precluding Defendant from asking prospective jurors what factors they would find aggravating or mitigating; (2) requiring Defendant to mention mitigation in a hypothetical question he asked; (3) striking for cause a juror who worked for the public defender's office and had expressed strong opposition to the death penalty; (4) denying Defendant's request for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) denying Defendant's requested jury instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law

The issue presented here was whether the superior court must hold an evidentiary hearing when the results of a postconviction DNA testing conducted under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-4240 are favorable to the petitioner. A jury found Petitioner guilty of second-degree murder. Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Petitioner later successfully petitioned the superior court for DNA testing. The test results were favorable to Defendant. Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief and requested an evidentiary hearing. The superior court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's order, holding that under section 13-4240(K), a court faced with favorable DNA test results, but no material issues of fact, must hold a non-evidentiary hearing to permit the parties to argue why the petitioner should or should not be entitled to relief as a matter of law. Remanded. View "State v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for first degree murder, illegal discharge of a firearm, and aggravated assault. At trial, the judge sua sponte instructed the jury on second degree murder over Defendant's objection and on manslaughter over the objections of Defendant and the State. The jury acquitted Defendant of first degree murder and was unable to reach a verdict on second degree murder but found Defendant guilty of manslaughter. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on aggravated assault but found Defendant guilty on the firearms charge. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by giving the manslaughter instruction over the objections of both parties. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) if a lesser included offense instruction is given and supported by the evidence, a resultant conviction for the lesser included offense does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights or contravene any Arizona statute or rule; and (2) because the manslaughter instruction in this case was supported by the evidence, Defendant's conviction must stand. View "State v. Gipson" on Justia Law

Defendant was detained by police during a stolen vehicle investigation. Defendant moved to suppress statements he made confessing to the crime, arguing that his initial detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion and, alternatively, that the initial detention had become a de facto arrest unsupported by probable cause before he was interrogated. The State countered that although there was no probable cause to arrest until Defendant made incriminating statements, the detention never became a de facto arrest. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted review to consider relevant factors in determining when a lawful detention becomes a de facto arrest. The Court vacated the court of appeals and held that the lack of evidence that officers acted diligently in investigating the matter and that the continuing use of handcuffs when there was no ongoing safety threat or flight risk transformed the valid Terry stop into a de facto arrest before Defendant was questioned by an auto theft detective. Remanded. View "State v. Boteo-Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant Dale Hausner was convicted and sentenced to death for six murders. Defendant was also convicted and sentenced for seventy-four non-capital offenses. The convictions stemmed from a series of random shootings in the Phoenix area between June 2005 and August 2006 in which Defendant murdered six pedestrians or bicyclists, several dogs, and, allegedly, a horse. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of animal cruelty, holding that the evidence was not sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant shot a horse; and (2) otherwise affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Hausner" on Justia Law