Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Dean and Stacey Norcutt bought a home for cash and satisfied the existing first mortgage held by Zions National Bank. They later discovered the home was also subject to a judgment lien obtained by Sourcecorp, Inc. that far exceeded the property's value. Sourcecorp subsequently initiated a sheriff's sale to foreclose on its judgment lien, and the Norcutts sued to enjoin the sale. The trial court granted relief to the Norcutts, and the court of appeals reversed. On remand, the trial court entered summary judgment for Sourcecorp. The Court of appeals reversed, holding that the Norcutts were equitably subrogated to the position of Zions Bank in priority over Sourcecorp. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Norcutts were equitably subrogated to the mortgage lien's priority for the amount they paid to satisfy the mortgage. Remanded. View "Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt" 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

Linda Brown sued a common carrier and its driver (SunTran) after sustaining serious injuries from being thrown from her wheelchair when the bus she was riding braked sharply. SunTran requested the judge to instruct the jury that common carriers have a duty to passengers to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. The judge rejected that instruction and instead instructed that a failure to exercise the highest degree of care under the circumstances was negligence. The jury awarded compensatory damages. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether a common carrier has a duty to exercise the highest degree of care practicable under the circumstances or only the duty to exercise reasonable care. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals, holding that the general negligence standard, reasonable care under all the circumstances, applies. Remanded for a new trial. View "Nunez v. Prof'l Transit Mgmt. of Tuscon, Inc." on Justia Law

The Moras sued Pauline Cosper for damages arising from a car accident. After mandatory arbitration, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of the Moras. The next day, Cosper filed a notice of appeal seeking a trial de novo and a list of witnesses and exhibits. Approximately two months later, Cosper filed a supplemental witness list designating an expert and disclosing her report. The superior court struck the supplemental disclosures as untimely, noting that Cosper had not attempted to show good cause for the later disclosure under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77. The court of appeals granted relief, holding that Rule 77 permits supplemental disclosure within eighty days after the filing of an appeal from compulsory arbitration without requiring that parties show good cause. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the superior court, holding that Rule 77(g)(1) requires that those appealing from arbitration awards simultaneously with the filing of the appeal file a list of witnesses and exhibits intended to be used at trial, and this list can only be supplemented for good cause under Rule 77(g)(4). View "Cosper v. Superior Court" 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