William A. Holohan

This case involves the second trial and appeal of Edward Harold Schad, Jr., who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder in the strangling death of Lorimer Grove and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed multiple claims, including the admissibility of the defendant's incriminating statements made to a jail visitor, alleged failures to preserve evidence like the victim's clothing and fingerprints, the lack of jury instructions and verdict forms on lesser-included offenses such as robbery or distinctions between premeditated and felony murder, the use of a prior murder conviction as an aggravating factor in sentencing, claims of double jeopardy and improper pecuniary gain findings, and the overall constitutionality of Arizona's death penalty scheme. The court rejected all challenges, finding no fundamental errors in the trial proceedings or sentencing, that the prior conviction was properly considered without violating double jeopardy, and that the death sentence was proportionate to similar cases. It independently reviewed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before affirming the conviction and death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ikirt, the defendant was convicted of arson, burglary, and criminal damage based entirely on circumstantial evidence linking him to the burning of his former in-laws' home amid a contentious divorce. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the convictions due to the admission of testimony about a witness's refusal to take a polygraph examination. On review, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's statement during a hearsay objection—that the defendant was present and could take the stand to explain his statements—constituted an improper comment on the defendant's failure to testify. The court reasoned that the remark would naturally and necessarily draw the jury's attention to the defendant's exercise of his constitutional right and place pressure on him to testify, and that the error was prejudicial in a circumstantial-evidence case. The court therefore reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Robert Earl White's convictions for second-degree burglary and sexual assault arising from an incident in which he entered the victim's apartment and assaulted her after she had declined his advances. White received an aggravated 20-year sentence for burglary to run consecutively to a mandatory life term for sexual assault, enhanced by his prior felony convictions. On appeal, he raised multiple claims including insufficient evidence of priors, denial of a live lineup, improper admission of prior convictions, jury instruction errors, an illegal clothing seizure, prosecutorial misconduct, double punishment under A.R.S. § 13-116, and equal protection violations. The court reviewed the record for fundamental error and concluded that the evidence supported the prior convictions, the trial rulings were not erroneous, the jury was properly instructed, and consecutive sentences were permissible, while affirming the judgments and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jeffrey Alan Walton's appeal from his convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and theft, along with his death sentence for the murder of Thomas Powell after abducting, robbing, and shooting him in the desert. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no errors in the trial court's handling of issues such as the defendant's competency evaluation, the voluntariness of his statements, jury selection, evidence admissibility, jury instructions, and the application of the death penalty statute. The court reasoned that the preliminary psychological evaluation showed no incompetence, the jury instructions were proper, the death sentence met constitutional standards including the Enmund test, and other claims lacked merit.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a 16-year-old juvenile who filed a special action to prevent the news media and public from attending his juvenile court transfer hearing on murder and theft charges. The petitioner argued that the Arizona Constitution's provision requiring juvenile proceedings to be held "in chambers" mandated closed hearings, conflicting with a court rule granting judges discretion to admit those with a direct interest. The court denied relief and allowed the hearing to proceed openly at the respondent judge's discretion. It reasoned that "in chambers" means proceedings conducted by a single judge outside formal open court sessions rather than requiring privacy, and that the rule appropriately balances public interest in open justice with the juvenile's circumstances.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

The case concerned two defendants who pleaded guilty to felonies and admitted prior out-of-state felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes, without challenging the validity of those priors in the trial court. On appeal, they argued that the state had not sufficiently proved the priors were counseled or that counsel was waived, prompting the Court of Appeals to remand for further hearings based on earlier precedent. The Arizona Supreme Court held that a prior conviction not challenged in the trial court is entitled to a presumption of regularity for enhancement purposes, and that defendants must raise any right-to-counsel claim either at trial or through a Rule 32 post-conviction petition rather than for the first time on appeal. The court reaffirmed that uncounseled convictions cannot be used to enhance sentences but clarified that the burden is on the defendant to timely raise the issue. It vacated the Court of Appeals decisions and affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure