Charles C. Bernstein

This case involves an appeal from a conviction for grand theft against an attorney who served as president of a fraternal benefit society, where he was charged with embezzling funds; the indictment came from a Pima County grand jury later found to have been improperly impaneled. The petitioner moved to quash the indictment and sought to inspect grand jury minutes regarding juror qualifications and impanelment, but the trial court limited inspection to other matters and later denied the motion after no amended filing occurred. The Arizona Supreme Court, referencing its prior decision in State v. Superior Court that invalidated actions by this same grand jury and noting the state's confession of error, held that the trial court's restrictions prevented the petitioner from obtaining evidence to support his challenge. The court concluded that defendants must have the opportunity to investigate grand jury proceedings to ensure proper qualifications under Arizona law, that the petitioner had timely preserved his objections, and that the Court of Appeals erred in requiring unsupported evidence. It vacated the decision below and remanded with instructions to quash the indictment without prejudice to refiling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the 1966 robbery conviction of Abedon Saiz for a 1961 theft from the Arizona State Treasurer’s office, after an initial complaint was dismissed and refiled near the end of the statute of limitations. Saiz challenged the admission of numerous hearsay statements regarding the planning and execution of the crime, argued that the pre-prosecution delay violated his constitutional speedy trial rights, and contended there was insufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statements were admissible under established exceptions to the hearsay rule, including declarations of intent and admissions by the defendant, that pre-prosecution delays do not trigger Sixth Amendment protections, and that independent witness testimony provided adequate corroboration under state law. The court rejected all assignments of error and upheld the jury verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jones, the defendant appealed his convictions for attempted robbery, robbery, and robbery with a prior conviction after being apprehended following two incidents at Phoenix stores. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the trial court did not err in omitting a jury instruction on the defendant's failure to testify because defense counsel expressly requested its omission as part of trial strategy. The court further held that evidence of the prior California robbery conviction was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt, based on authenticated documents containing matching names and photographs that could be compared to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Seferino Valdon, a 65-year-old equipment operator for the Maricopa County Highway Department, sustained a hip injury in July 1963 when he tripped over a paint can while performing physically demanding duties. The Industrial Commission awarded him temporary disability benefits but found his condition stationary by February 1965 with no permanent disability or loss of function caused by the accident, attributing ongoing issues to age-related deterioration. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the uncontradicted testimony of seven doctors established no causal link between the injury and any permanent disability. The court also ruled that a referee's recommendations are advisory only and that the Commission bears sole responsibility for final findings of fact. The evidence supported the Commission's conclusions, and the claimant failed to present any medical evidence to the contrary.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case was a wrongful death action brought against the Colorado River Indian Tribe after a swimmer was struck and killed by a boat in the Colorado River near the tribe's Blue Water Marina Park business. The trial court dismissed the suit on the tribe's motion, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that state courts lacked jurisdiction because the tribe is a dependent domestic sovereign immune from suit absent its consent or congressional authorization. The court reasoned that the 1876 executive order creating the reservation lacked the clear intent needed to convey title to submerged lands and navigable waters, which therefore remained under state ownership, and that the tribe's operation of a commercial enterprise did not waive its immunity.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Rodgers, the defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon after shooting a man who approached his car and engaged in an altercation with a female passenger; the defendant claimed the shooting was to prevent harm to the passenger. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction on flight because the evidence showed only that the defendant left the scene and returned to his quarters out of fear, without any attempt to conceal himself or evade arrest. The decision relied on prior precedent requiring evidence of concealment or consciousness of guilt for a flight instruction to be proper.

criminal law