Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Arizona Constitution entitles victims of crimes to be present and informed of all criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present. In this case, Petitioners Morehart and Duffy challenged a court decision that denied them the opportunity to attend an ex parte hearing on the return of summonses issues as part of defense counsel’s pretrial investigation and mitigation of evidence in a capital case. The Defendant was charged with five counts of fist-degree murder. The State sought the death penalty. In 2006, the trial court found the defendant indigent, and approved an ex parte motion for the appointment of a mitigation specialist and an expert. Defense counsel filed a motion for a hearing on the matter. The court granted the ex parte request, and the Victims objected to it. The Victims sought special action relief from the appellate court, arguing that state law “does not displace a victim’s right to be present at all criminal proceedings." The Supreme Court held that because the defendant had no right to attend such a purely procedural hearing, the victims had no right to attend it too. The Court vacated the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.View "Morehart v. Arizona" on Justia Law

A state administrative rule provides that a physician should rate an injured worker's impairment using standards set forth in the "most recent edition" of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). Appellee Jesus Gutierrez injured his back in 2007 while working for a framing company. His claim for workers' compensation was accepted and he received medical treatment. The treating physician later released Appellee to return to work with physical restrictions. Concluding that Appellee was not permanently impaired, the insurance carrier (the "carrier") closed the claim. Appellee requested a hearing to challenge the "no impairment" determination. At the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) hearings, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard testimony from two physicians: Appellee's treating physician and one presented by the carrier. Appellee's physician relied on the Fifth Edition of the AMA Guides; the carrier's physician relied on the Sixth Edition. Based on the insurance carrier's expert, the ALJ found that the carrier did not err in closing Appellee's claim. On special review, the appellate court affirmed the ALJ's decision. The issue before the Supreme Court was framed to address whether "the most recent edition" as specified in the Arizona Administrative Rules refers to the edition that was most recent when the Rule was promulgated or the latest edition existing when the claimant's impairment was rated. The Supreme Court on review of the lower courts' decisions found that the Rule's "fair and sensible meaning" anticipated that the guides would change and that "an evolving standard was intended." The Court affirmed the award and decision of the ICA.View "Guttierez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona" on Justia Law

Theodore Abrams, a member of the Arizona bar, was appointed as a Tucson City Court Magistrate in 2002. In 2010, the Commission on Judicial Conduct brought formal disciplinary charges against Abrams based on allegations of sexual harassment. Abrams and the Commission entered into a stipulated resolution in which Abrams acknowledged that his conduct warranted removal to the bench and agreed to the imposition of a censure and to resign his judicial position and never again seek or hold judicial office. The Supreme Court granted sua sponte review of the Commission's recommendation that it approve the stipulated resolution. The Court (1) censured Abrams and permanently enjoined him from again serving as a judicial officer in Arizona, and (2) concluded that an appropriate sanction for Abrams' misconduct was a two-year suspension from the practice of law. View "In re Abrams" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Lehr was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the murder of two women. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Lehr's convictions and sentences, holding (1) Lehr's waiver of his right to attend trial was knowing and voluntary; (2) the trial court did not err in its use of other acts evidence and in its jury instructions; (3) the trial court did not violate Lehr's rights under the Confrontation Clause in admitting prior testimony by a witness; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lehr's motion to preclude DNA evidence; (5) the trial court did not deny Lehr's right to a fair and impartial jury by refusing to grant a mistrial after several jurors applauded upon the completion of certain testimony; (6) the trial court's jury instruction defining premeditation and the State's closing argument did not violate Lehr's right to due process; (7) the trial court did not violate the state rules of criminal procedure by allowing the State to amend its notice of aggravating factors; and (8) the trial court did not violate the Eighth Amendment by precluding Lehr from offering testimony from one of his victims. View "State v. Lehr" on Justia Law

The Arizona Constitution requires that a five-member Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) draw boundaries for congressional and state legislative districts after every decennial census. According to Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, section 1(3), during the three years preceding appointment, members of the IRC shall not have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office. In 2010, the Appointment Commission selected twenty-five nominees for the IRC, including a chief judge for two state tribal courts and directors of irrigation districts. Petitioners Kirk Adams, speaker of the House of Representatives, and Russell Pearce, president of the Senate, asked the Commission to reconsider, arguing that the three contested nominees were ineligible because they held public office. The Commission declined to change its selections, and Petitioners filed a petition for special action with the Supreme Court. The Court (1) denied relief as to the tribal judge because a tribal judge is not a public office for purposes of section 1(3); (2) granted relief as to the irrigation district board members because an irrigation district director holds a public office for purposes of section 1(3); and (3) ordered the Commission to identify two alternative nominees. View "Adams v. Comm'n on Appellate Court Appointments" on Justia Law

A jury found James Styers guilty of the 1989 murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, kidnapping, and child abuse of a four-year-old. After finding three aggravating factors and no mitigating circumstances, the trial judge sentenced Styers to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence. Styers then filed a habeas corpus petition, which the district court denied. The court of appeals reversed and granted relief, finding that in independently reviewing Styers' death sentence, the Supreme Court erroneously refused to consider as a mitigating circumstance the PTSD Styers suffered from as a result of military service in Vietnam. The Supreme Court granted the state's request to conduct a new independent review. On review, the Court affirmed Styers' sentence, holding that Styers' PTSD, in combination with all other mitigating evidence previously considered by the Court, was not sufficient to warrant leniency in light of the aggravating factors proven in this case. View "State v. Styers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Marshall Home brought an action in superior court to disqualify Jonathan Rothschild as a Democratic candidate for mayor of the city of Tuscon, arguing that Rothschild was ineligible to serve as mayor because he was a member of the state bar of Arizona and, thus, was also automatically a member of the judiciary. Therefore, Home argued that Rothschild should be disqualified from non-judicial office by the separation of powers doctrine in the Arizona Constitution. The superior court dismissed Home's complaint, finding Home's argument "spurious." On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding there is no incompatibility between the private practice of law and serving as the mayor of a municipality. The Court also found Home's appeal frivolous and awarded defendants attorney fees and costs. View "Home v. Rothschild" on Justia Law

In April 2008, plaintiff American Asphalt sued CMX for professional negligence and breach of implied warranty. On October 1, 2008, the superior court issued an order informing plaintiff that if it did not file a motion to set as required by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 38.1(e), the case would be placed on the inactive calendar after January 20, 2009 and dismissed without further notice after March 23, 2009. American did not file a motion to set and the case was dismissed without further notice on April 29, 2009. Plaintiff moved to set aside the dismissal, contending that its failure to comply with Rule 38.1(a) was excusable because it had substituted counsel around the time of the Rule 38.1(d) filing deadline. The superior court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, finding no excusable neglect partly because the court's order provided notice as required by the rule. On review, the Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision and remanded, holding that a notice issued several months prior to placing the case on the inactive calendar does not comply with the rule because the rule requires contemporaneous notice when a case is placed on the inactive calendar. View "American Asphalt & Grading Co. v. CMX, L.L.C." on Justia Law

In this lawsuit, one of several suits alleging construction defects in homes located in a Shea Homes planned community, plaintiffs Albert Albano and other homeowners appealed to the circuit court from the district court's summary judgment dismissing their construction-defect claims against Shea Homes as barred by Arizona's statute of repose. The plaintiffs were three homeowners not allowed to join a previous putative class action against Shea Homes. On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in failing to apply American Pipe v. Utah, which tolls the applicable statute of limitations for non-named class members until class certification is denied, to the period between the filing of the previous putative class action lawsuit and the denial of class certification. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to answer the certified question of whether the American Pipe tolling rule would also apply to a statute of repose. The Court held that the class-action tolling doctrine does not apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects. View "Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd." on Justia Law

After the superior court issued a decree dissolving the marriage of Sue Craig and Roger Craig, Roger timely filed a motion for a new trial or to amend the decree. Before the court ruled on Roger's motion, Sue filed a notice of appeal. Roger then cross-appealed. The superior court denied Roger's motion, and neither party filed a new or amended notice of appeal. A divided court of appeals dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction, finding the rule stated in Barassi v. Matison that appellate courts should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the case where a litigant attempts to appeal where a motion is still pending in the trial court applied. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the Barassi rule applies even when the notice of appeal is filed by a non-moving party. View "Craig v. Craig" on Justia Law