Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Police officers detained Defendant, who was sitting on a curb outside a vacant building, and questioned him about a suspected burglary. Defendant admitted to the burglary and was arrested. Before his trial, Defendant moved to suppress his statements to the police because they were not preceded by the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that when Defendant was questioned he was not in custody for Miranda purposes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s statements were admissible because he was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he made them. View "State v. Maciel" on Justia Law

Based on the odor of marijuana emanating from a storage warehouse, police officers obtained a warrant to search a unit in the warehouse. In the ensuing search, the officers seized marijuana growing equipment and hundreds of marijuana plants. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) did not impact the determination that the odor of marijuana suffices to establish probable cause of issuance of a search warrant. The court of appeals reversed, holding that after the adoption of AMMA, the scent of marijuana, alone, is insufficient evidence of criminal activity to supply probable cause. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying the motion to suppress, holding (1) the odor of marijuana emanating from inside a vehicle suffices to establish probable cause unless other facts would cause a reasonable person to believe the marijuana use or possession is authorized by AMMA; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances of this case, the odor of marijuana established probable cause. View "State v. Sisco" on Justia Law

Police officers stopped Defendant’s vehicle for unlawful window tinting. Upon approaching the vehicle and speaking with Defendant, the officers noticed an odor of burnt marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle. The officers searched the car and found a small amount of unburnt marijuana. Defendant was arrested and charged with possession or use of marijuana. Defendant filed a motion to suppress arguing that, after passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, the odor of marijuana coming from a vehicle does not alone provide probable cause. The trial court denied the motion and then found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in the instant case, the odor of marijuana sufficed to establish probable cause, and therefore, the search was authorized by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. View "State v. Cheatham" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of nine counts of first degree murder, among other crimes. The trial court imposed nine death sentences for the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his home; (2) the trial court did not unconstitutionally deny Defendant the opportunity to observe or participate in the State’s DNA testing procedures that consumed certain DNA samples; (3) the trial court did not fundamentally err by ending Defendant’s motion to sever and by permitting joinder of all the counts in the indictment; (4) the trial court did not deprive Defendant of his constitutional right to counsel; (5) the trial court did not prejudicially err in its evidentiary rulings; (6) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and the jury’s findings that Defendant committed the murders in an especially cruel manner; (7) although the State made some improper remarks during the State’s opening arguments, they did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (8) Defendant’s waiver of his right to present mitigation was voluntary, knowing, and informed; and (9) the jury did not abuse its discretion in finding death sentences appropriate for the murders. View "Arizona v. Goudeau" on Justia Law

After Defendant resisted, two police officers subdued and handcuffed him. The resistance and arrest formed one uninterrupted course of conduct. Defendant was indicted on two counts of resisting arrest under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13—2508 - one for each officer resisted. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent rather than consecutive terms of imprisonment. The court of appeals vacated one of Defendant’s resisting arrest convictions, concluding that the second conviction arose from the same offense and violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals, vacated Defendant’s second conviction for resisting arrest, and affirmed the remaining convictions, holding that the legislature did not intend, and the Double Jeopardy Clause does not allow, multiple convictions under section 13-2508 for a single, continuous act of resisting arrest. View "State v. Jurden" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on sixty-seven counts, including nine counts of first-degree murder. The jury returned death verdicts on all nine murder charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) any error in the denial of Defendant’s request to observe or participate in the State’s DNA testing procedures that consumed certain DNA samples was harmless; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to sever; (4) Defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel; (5) Defendant was not deprived of a fundamentally fair trial; (6) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence other-act evidence, pretrial and in-court identifications, firearms expert testimony, and an autopsy photograph; (7) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s right to present a complete defense; (8) although the prosecutor made some improper remarks during trial, they did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (9) the trial court did not prejudicially err during the penalty phase; and (10) the jury did not abuse its discretion in finding death sentences appropriate for each of the nine murders. View "State v. Goudeau" on Justia Law

Patients filed suit to set aside accord and satisfaction agreements and to recover the amounts paid to release liens. Hospitals, health care providers who treated patients injured by third parties, were paid by the Patients' insurer, AHCCCS, which had negotiated reduced rates with the Hospitals. The Hospitals then recorded liens against the Patients pursuant to A.R.S. 33-931 and A.R.S. 36-2903.01(G) for the difference between the amount typically charged for their treatment and the reduced amount paid by AHCCCS. In order to receive their personal injury settlements with the third parties, Patients settled with the Hospitals by paying negotiated amounts to release the liens. At issue is the validity of these accord and satisfaction agreements. The court assumed, without deciding, that Arizona’s lien statutes are preempted by federal law. But, because there was a bona fide dispute about the enforceability of these liens when the Patients and Hospitals entered into settlement agreements to achieve lien releases, the agreements were supported by adequate consideration and addressed a proper subject matter. Therefore, the accord and satisfaction agreements are valid. View "Abbott v. Banner Health Network" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) and taken to a police station, where he was read an “admin per se” form. The form provided that “Arizona law requires you to submit” to breath, blood, or other bodily substance tests chosen by law enforcement. Defendant subsequently submitted to breath and blood tests and was subsequently charged with five counts of aggravated DUI. Defendant moved to suppress the test results, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he did not voluntarily consent to the tests. The trial court denied the motion. Based on the parties’ stipulated facts, the court dismissed three counts and convicted Defendant on the remaining counts. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) Defendant’s consent was not freely and voluntarily given in this case; but (2) because the admonition was given in good faith reliance on precedent, exclusion of the test results was not required. View "State v. Valenzuela" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a motorized watercraft while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OUI) and transported to an aid station used by the sheriff’s office. Defendant read an “OUI Admonishment” form, which provided that “Arizona law requires you to submit” to breath, blood, or other bodily substance tests chosen by law enforcement. Defendant agreed to submit to a blood draw and was subsequently charged with two counts of OUI and one count of extreme OUI. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the test results, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he did not voluntarily consent to the test. The justice court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant did not consent to giving blood samples in this case. Remanded. View "Brown v. Hon. Crane McClennen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of conspiracy to commit sexual exploitation of a minor. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and juror misconduct. The trial court summarily dismissed Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither Appellant’s trial counsel nor his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance; and (2) even if Appellant properly raised his juror misconduct claim, he failed to show prejudice. View "State v. Kolmann" on Justia Law