Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A grand jury indicted Jesse Mesa in May 2014 for first degree murder and other charges. Mesa was arraigned the same month. The State did not file a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, and trial was set. In April 2015, the State obtained a new indictment of Mesa alleging the same charges as the first indictment but adding other charges. Mesa was arraigned the next month. Thereafter, the State dismissed the 2014 charges. The State subsequently filed a timely notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Mesa moved to strike the State’s notice of intent, asserting that it was invalid because the State had not timely filed a notice after he was arraigned for the 2014 charges. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when the State complies with Ariz. R. Crim. P. 16.6 in dismissing a prosecution and obtains a new indictment, the time limits for filing a notice under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.1(i)(1) restart, absent bad faith by the State or prejudice to the defendant; and (2) the untimely filing of a death notice does not itself invalidate the notice but may result in sanctions, including an order striking the notice. View "Mesa v. Honorable Warren J. Granville" on Justia Law

This case concerned the warrantless search of the residence of Defendant, a probationer. As a result of the search Defendant was charged with felony possession of narcotic drugs for sale and other offenses. Defendant sought to suppress the items seized during the search. The trial court ultimately granted Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the probation search was not supported by a reasonable suspicion and did not have a sufficient legal basis. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a warrantless search of a probationer’s residence complies with the Fourth Amendment if it is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and its legality does not depend on whether the search is supported by reasonable suspicion; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances, the warrantless search conducted in this case was reasonable and thus constitutional. View "State v. Adair" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Arizona Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1609, which changed the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan by changing the formula for calculating future benefit increases for retired Plan members and increased the amount that employed Plan members must contribute toward their pensions. Employed members of the Plan challenged the Bill, arguing that the unilateral changes to the benefit increases formula and to the amount they were required to contribute toward their pensions violated the Pension Clause and that the legislature could not unilaterally change the terms of their pensions to their detriment. The trial court agreed and invalidated the provisions at issue. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the employed Plan members, holding that the Bill’s change to the benefit increases formula and the contribution rate violates the Pension Clause and the Court’s holding in Yeazell v. Copins; and (2) contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the employed members are entitled to attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest, and the judgment must run against the State as well as the Plan. View "Honorable Philip Hall v. Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan" on Justia Law

Sammantha Allen and John Allen, a married couple, were indicted by a grand jury for first degree felony murder. The indictment concurrently charged the Allens with multiple counts of child abuse. The State filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, alleging the child abuse offenses as “serious offense” aggravating circumstances under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-751(F)(2). At the Allens’ request, the trial court conducted a hearing under the procedures outlined in Chronis v. Steinle and determined that probable cause existed for the serious offense aggravators because the grand jury found that probable cause existed for the alleged aggravating circumstances. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Sanchez v. Ainley required the trial court to independently determine whether probable cause existed for the serious offense aggravators. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court must independently determine if a concurrently charged offense qualifies as a serious offense, but the court should accept the grand jury’s determination that probable cause exists for the concurrently charged offense. View "Allen v. Honorable Teresa A. Sanders" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of child molestation and sexual abuse of a minor under age fifteen. Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-1407(E), it is a defense to a prosecution for sexual abuse or child molestation that a defendant was not motivated by a sexual interest. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Defendant bore the burden of proving “his conduct was not motivated by a sexual interest” but that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) section 13-1407(E) provides an affirmative defense that a defendant must prove, and therefore, the State need not prove as an element of those crimes that a defendant’s conduct was motivated by a sexual interest; and (2) the trial court properly instructed the jury that Defendant was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not motivated by a sexual interest. View "State v. Holle" on Justia Law

For many years, the City of Phoenix has contracted in collective bargaining agreements with police officers to pay officers for certain time spent on behalf of a police union (“release time”) rather than regular police duties. Taxpayers sued the City, allowing that four release time provisions in a 2012 collective bargaining agreement violated the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The trial court issued a permanent injunction, ruling that the provisions violate the Gift Clause because they lack a public purpose and are not support by adequate consideration. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the challenged release time provisions do not violate the Gift Clause. View "Cheatham v. DiCiccio" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with necrophilia and two counts of sexual assault. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of a video taken with his cell phone that he left in the victim’s apartment where he was an overnight guest, contending that the warrantless search of his phone was unconstitutional. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion and suppressed of the video and of statements Defendant made to the police about that video, holding that the evidence resulted from an illegal search. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the warrantless search of the phone was permissible because Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in either the victim’s apartment or his cell phone. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone; (2) as an overnight guest, Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment; and (3) no exception to the warrant requirement existed, and therefore, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. View "State v. Peoples" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping and sentenced to death. For reasons unrelated to this appeal, the Supreme Court remanded for a new penalty phase trial on the murder conviction. After a penalty phase retrial, a jury again determined that Defendant should be sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in allowing Defendant to represent himself during the penalty phase on remand; (2) the trial court did not err by permitting Defendant to waive the presentation of mitigation evidence; (3) the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to strike a certain aggravator was not erroneous; (4) the trial court’s response to a jury question during deliberations was not fundamental error; and (5) there was no prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Gunches" on Justia Law

Premier Physicians Group, a non-hospital health care provider, treated Mandy Gipson for injuries sustained in a car accident allegedly caused by Kimberly Navarro. Premier was statutorily entitled to record a lien for its customary charges in treating Gipson, and the lien applied to claims Gipson may have had for damages related to her injury. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-932(A) requires that such liens must be recorded “before or within thirty days after the patient has received any services relating to the injuries….” The Navarros’ insurer paid Gipson to settle her claim but did not satisfy the lien, and Gipson failed to pay Premier for its services. Premier sued the Navarros to enforce the lien. The trial court dismissed the complaint because the lien was recorded more than thirty days after Premier first provided services to Gipson. Premier appealed, arguing that section 33-932() allowed it to perfect with lien within thirty days after services were last provided. The court of appeals agreed with Premier and reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, holding that section 33-932(A) requires non-hospital providers to record liens before services are first provided or within thirty days thereafter. View "Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro" on Justia Law

Frank Tamburri seeks the Libertarian Party nomination for United States Senator in the 2016 election. Pursuant to A.R.S. 16-314, Tamburri timely filed a nomination petition which included 4,205 signatures. Robert Graham, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, filed suit challenging the validity of 2,845 signatures and sought to exclude Tamburri’s name from the Libertarian primary election ballot. On appeal, Tamburri challenges the trial court’s order excluding his name from the Libertarian primary election ballot for the office of United States Senator. Tamburri concedes that he did not collect at least 3,034 signatures from “qualified signers” under A.R.S. 16-321 and -322. As a preliminary matter, the court rejected Tamburri's procedural arguments. The court held that the signature requirements of H.B. 2608 do not severely burden the ability of candidates to exercise their First Amendment rights where Tamburri has failed to show that the increased signature requirements, either facially or as applied to him, would prevent “reasonably diligent” minor party candidates from gaining ballot access. The court concluded that the 0.25 percent signature requirement is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in ensuring that candidates who appear on the general election ballot have some significant modicum of support. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment excluding Tamburri’s name from the primary ballot. View "Graham v. Tamburri" on Justia Law