Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gary Gipson 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 Gipson's objection and on manslaughter over the objections of both Gipson and the State. The jury found Gipson guilty of manslaughter and illegal discharge of a firearm. On appeal, Gipson conceded that the evidence supported the manslaughter instruction, but he argued that the trial court erred by giving it over the objections of both parties. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although a judge should hesitate to give the instruction over objections from the defense and the prosecution, it was not reversible error in this case to do so. View "State v. Gipson" on Justia Law

In early 2011, Colleen Mathis was selected as the chairperson of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). In October 2011, the Governor notified the Commissioners of allegations that they had committed substantial neglect of duty and gross misconduct in office. The next month, the Secretary of State sent a letter to Mathis removing her from the IRC. Two-thirds of the Senate concurred in the removal, and Mathis was removed from office. Three days later, the IRC petitioned the Supreme Court for special action relief, claiming that the Governor exceeded her limited removal authority and that the Governor and the Senate violated separation-of-powers principles by usurping powers of the IRC and the judiciary. The Court accepted special action jurisdiction and (1) concluded, as a matter of law, that neither of the Governor's two stated grounds for removing Mathis constituted substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct in office, as required by the Arizona Constitution; and (2) ordered that Mathis be reinstated as chair of the IRC. View "Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Mathis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Brad Nelson was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The jury found proven beyond a reasonable doubt the only aggravator alleged under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-751(F)(9), that Nelson was an adult and the victim was under fifteen years old at the time of the murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Nelson's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Nelson was not deprived of a fair and impartial jury; (2) the jury's finding of premeditation was not legally incorrect; (3) the premeditation instruction given to the jury was not fundamentally erroneous, nor did the prosecutor incorrectly argue premeditation; (4) the section 13-751(F)(9) aggravator was constitutional; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nelson's motion for mistrial based on an improper argument by the prosecutor; and (6) the jury did not abuse its discretion in determining that Nelson should be sentenced to death. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Patrick Ferrero was charged with three counts of sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court admitted evidence of "other uncharged acts" with the minor. The judge did not screen the evidence under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c), which permits "other act" evidence to prove the defendant's propensity to commit the charged offense, but only if the court makes specific findings. The court of appeals reversed Ferrero's convictions on two counts, holding that the trial judge erred in failing to screen the evidence of Ferrero's prior sexual conduct with the minor - State v. Garner evidence - under Rule 404(c). At issue before the Supreme Court was whether evidence of similar sexual contact with the same minor victim is "intrinsic evidence" that is not governed by Rule 404(c). The Court vacated the court of appeals and remanded the case for a new trial on the first two counts, holding (1) Rule 404(c) does not apply to truly intrinsic evidence, but Garner evidence is not inherently intrinsic; and (2) because the evidence in this case was offered to prove Ferrero's propensity to commit the charged act, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of that act without screening it under Rule 404(c). View "State v. Ferraro" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Pete VanWinkle was found guilty of attempted murder and other offenses. VanWinkle appealed, arguing that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by admitting evidence of his post-custody, pre-Miranda silence, and the prosecutorial comment on it. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Miranda did not apply because there was no police interrogation. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals but affirmed VanWinkle's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the admission of post-custody, pre-Miranda silence and prosecutorial comment on such silence violates a defendant's constitutional right to remain silent; but (2) the error in this case was harmless. View "State v. VanWinkle" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Arizona Legislature amended Ariz. Rev. Stat. 9-821.01, which, as amended, barred a city from electing its city council in partisan elections or in ward-based primaries combined with at-large general elections. The City of Tuscon filed this case against the State, claiming that the amendments to section 9-821.01 did not apply to it as a charter city. The superior court entered judgment for the State. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court's judgment, holding that because Arizona's Constitution includes a provision authorizing eligible cities to adopt charters, and because a charter city has the power to frame its own organic law, including the power to determine who its governing officers shall be and how they shall be selected, section 9-821.01, as amended, did not displace the method that voters of the City of Tuscon chose under its 1929 charter for electing council members. Remanded to the superior court for entry of summary judgment in favor of the City of Tuscon. View "City of Tuscon v. State" on Justia Law

Granvil Wallace pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death by the trial judge for three murders. The Supreme Court subsequently reduced the death sentence for one murder count to life in prison because the evidence was insufficient to prove an aggravating circumstance as to that murder. In this appeal the Supreme Court vacated Wallace's remaining two death sentences and sentenced him to consecutive life terms of imprisonment, holding that the State had no established beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace inflicted gratuitous violence on the two victims, and thus, the murders were not heinous or depraved under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-751(F)(6), the sole aggravating factor alleged in this case. View "State v. Wallace" on Justia Law

A jury found Benjamin Cota guilty of two counts of first degree murer, two counts of armed robbery, one count of possession of narcotics, and one count of unlawful flight. Cota was sentenced to death on one first degree murder count and to prison terms for the other counts. The trial judge stated that he believed Arizona law "required" him to make the sentences on the "non-capital" counts consecutive, and he did so on all but the flight count. The Supreme Court affirmed Cota's convictions and death sentence but remanded for resentencing on the non-capital counts, holding that although the judge here imposed one concurrent sentence, the Court was not convinced the judge was aware of his discretion to do the same with all other sentences under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-708. View "State v. Cota" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Jahmari Manuel was convicted of first degree murder and other offenses related to the death of Darrell Willeford. The jury determined that Manuel should be sentenced to death for the murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Manuel's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Manuel's notice of change of judge because the notice was untimely under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2(a); (2) the trial court did not err in denying Manuel's motion to suppress a pistol found in his hotel room when he was arrested because the officer discovered the gun in plain view; (3) Manuel did not show that certain remarks that the prosecutor made at trial caused prejudice sufficient to constitute fundamental error, and the instances of alleged misconduct did not warrant reversal when considered cumulatively; (4) the trial judge correctly answered a juror's question in the penalty phase; (5) the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Manuel's motion for new trial; and (6) the jury did not abuse its discretion by determining that Manuel should be sentenced to death. View "State v. Manuel " on Justia Law

Clifford Ochser brought a civil rights action against two deputy sheriffs for arresting him on a warrant that had been quashed some thirteen months earlier. The trial court granted the deputies' motion for summary judgment, ruling that an arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity when the arrest is made on a facially valid warrant. A divided court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was the scope of qualified immunity in the context of arrests made pursuant to a facially valid but quashed warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although Ochser's arrest was an unreasonable seizure prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity because then-existing law did not clearly establish the constitutionality of their actions. View "Ochser v. Funk" on Justia Law