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

The case involved a tort action by Robert and Alice Hamman against a psychiatrist, Dr. Suguitan, and Maricopa County after their son/stepson John Carter, a patient, attacked and severely injured Robert Hamman. The Hammans had brought Carter to the hospital emergency psychiatric center, describing his history of violent and strange behavior and requesting admission, but Dr. Suguitan declined to admit him, prescribed medication, and reportedly assured them Carter was harmless without reviewing prior medical records. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds that no duty was owed absent a specific threat to the victims, and the Court of Appeals partially affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that a psychiatrist owes a duty to third persons within the reasonably foreseeable zone of danger from a patient's violent conduct and must take reasonable steps to protect them, not limited to cases with specific threats communicated by the patient.

torts & liability

The case involved Walter E. Heller Western, Inc., a multistate commercial financing company, challenging the Arizona Department of Revenue's tax assessments for 1976-1979. The dispute centered on whether interest income from loans to Arizona customers should be included in the numerator of the sales factor within the three-factor apportionment formula used to determine the portion of the company's multistate income taxable in Arizona. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Department, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the matter. The court held that the borrowing of funds out of state did not constitute the relevant 'income producing activity' under the applicable regulations; instead, the direct solicitation, negotiation, and servicing of loans in Arizona qualified as such activity. Accordingly, the court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Department.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved nonresident customers suing the City of Phoenix under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that an ordinance doubling their water rates constituted unconstitutional discrimination and seeking damages, injunctive relief, and class action status. The Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that the complaint did not state a valid federal civil rights claim, as plaintiffs had no constitutional right to water service at a specific rate and any remedy for violating state law must be pursued under state statutes rather than § 1983. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that A.R.S. § 9-516(C) requires municipalities to continue providing utility service to nonresidents at reasonable rates, and remanded to allow amendment of the complaint to assert such a state-law claim.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the appeal of Larry Staatz's convictions for first-degree murder and two counts of theft over $1,000, arising from the stabbing death of James Errara in his trailer and the taking of his car and ring. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, including life imprisonment for the murder. On the key issues, the court held that Staatz's statements to police were admissible because he had initiated further conversation after a possible reference to counsel, following Edwards v. Arizona; the trial court properly applied the amended rule on peremptory challenges as a procedural matter that did not impair the defendant's rights; and the instruction requiring unanimous acquittal of greater offenses before considering lesser-included ones was consistent with precedent in State v. Wussler. The court found no error in admitting photographs of the victim or other matters and identified no fundamental error in the record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved David Michael Glover's conviction for aggravated assault after shooting Robert Gillette, which the defendant claimed was accidental due to his intoxication from alcohol and prescription drugs. After the jury reported being deadlocked, it received a supplemental instruction, then returned a guilty verdict; post-trial evidence showed jurors had obtained outside information, including medical advice on the defendant's substance intake and details about the effects of a hung jury. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, finding the misconduct harmless, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the jurors' receipt of extrinsic evidence violated the defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation and a fair trial based on evidence presented in court.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant could collaterally challenge a prior guilty plea conviction from a non-record court, based solely on the absence of a detailed record showing the factual basis for the plea, when that conviction was used to enhance the sentence for a subsequent DUI offense under Arizona law. The defendant had been convicted in justice court as a repeat offender after the state introduced a certified record of the prior plea, which included a signed document indicating the defendant was advised of rights, waived counsel, and that the magistrate found a factual basis, though no transcript existed. The superior court on appeal ruled the prior conviction invalid for enhancement purposes due to the incomplete record and ordered resentencing as a first offender. The Arizona Supreme Court granted the state's petition for special action, holding that the certified record showing voluntary waiver of counsel and otherwise regular on its face entitled the prior conviction to a presumption of validity, precluding collateral attack without additional evidence of irregularity. The court vacated the superior court's order and directed reinstatement of the enhanced sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Bejarano, the petitioner sought post-conviction relief in superior court more than one year after the mandate in her case, leading to summary denial under A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(4) and related statutes; the Court of Appeals upheld the denial on timeliness grounds. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to address whether the statutory time limits and exceptions in A.R.S. §§ 13-4231 et seq. violated separation of powers under Article III of the Arizona Constitution by infringing on the court's rulemaking authority. The court approved the holding in State v. Fowler that provisions such as A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(4) and § 13-4234(A) and (F) were unconstitutional for invading the supreme court's power under Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(5). It therefore vacated the Court of Appeals' order and remanded the matter for reconsideration under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court over a county-wide hiring freeze implemented due to projected budget deficits. The Board challenged the judge's refusal to comply with the freeze and his issuance of orders to fill court positions and compel county officials to attend administrative hearings. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the Board acted reasonably in applying the freeze uniformly and that the presiding judge must follow established county procedures for personnel requests. The court further ruled that the presiding judge lacked authority to order non-judicial personnel to appear at administrative hearings or to bypass the procedures. The reasoning centered on the lack of specific constitutional or statutory authority for the judge's actions in purely administrative matters and the need for the judiciary to adhere to county budget processes.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved property owners suing to block initiative petitions in the City of Tucson and Pima County that would create large buffer zones around open space preserves and require voter approval for any future zoning changes within those zones. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held that city or county zoning ordinances cannot be amended by initiative. The court reasoned that state statutes specifically delegate zoning power to local governing bodies and require notice and public hearings before restrictions are imposed on property, and these detailed procedures control over the general constitutional or charter provisions allowing initiatives.

propertyprocedureelections

The case concerned whether a recall election for Arizona Governor Evan Mecham should proceed after he was removed from office through impeachment proceedings. Petitioners, taxpayers and electors, sought to enjoin the acting Secretary of State from holding the scheduled recall election on May 17, 1988. The Arizona Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the election should not proceed. The court's reasoning was that Mecham's conviction and removal by the Senate rendered the recall election unnecessary, as the Constitution provides for succession and the recall provisions do not require holding the election when the office is already vacant due to impeachment.

electionsprocedure

This case involved Shamrock Foods Company challenging the City of Phoenix's assessment of privilege taxes on its sales of non-container paper and plastic products, such as napkins, straws, and utensils, to restaurants. The Arizona Supreme Court held that these sales were not subject to the tax because they qualified as sales for resale rather than retail sales. The court reasoned that the products are provided to restaurant customers as part of their meal purchases, with the cost included in the food prices, meaning the restaurants transfer title and possession to the ultimate consumers. This interpretation aligns with the broad definition of sales and the principle that tax ordinances are construed in favor of the taxpayer when ambiguous. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Shamrock, vacating part of the Court of Appeals' decision.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant who pled guilty to attempted second-degree burglary under a plea agreement that required payment of restitution for any economic loss but did not specify an amount. The trial court imposed a four-year prison sentence and ordered $78 in restitution; the Court of Appeals vacated the conviction and sentence under prior precedent, allowing the defendant to withdraw the plea because he had not been informed of the exact restitution figure. On review, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the plea was valid and voluntary because the defendant understood the general obligation to pay restitution, the specific small amount was not a material factor in his decision, and he faced far greater potential penalties. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment and sentence. It also overruled portions of its earlier decisions in State v. Lukens and State v. Phillips that had required disclosure of a precise restitution amount before a plea could be accepted.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Jeffrey Don Allen's conviction for child molestation, based entirely on out-of-court statements by the six-year-old victim who did not testify at trial after she became distressed during a videotaped deposition. The Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court correctly ruled the child unavailable under A.R.S. § 13-1416, allowing her hearsay statements to be admitted, and whether this satisfied confrontation clause requirements for trustworthiness and necessity. The court held that the trial court erred in finding unavailability, as the child had not been shown to be truly unable to testify despite some efforts, rendering the statements inadmissible without cross-examination. This disposition led to reversal without reaching the separate issue of inadmissible expert testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a garage mechanic injured after hours while helping a coworker repair his personal car at the employer's shop using the employer's tools and facilities with the owner's permission. The Industrial Commission denied workers' compensation benefits, concluding the injury did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment since it was after hours and provided no direct benefit to the employer, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decisions, ruling the claim compensable because the activity occurred with the employer's express approval as a permitted fringe benefit, creating a sufficient nexus to the employment relationship even though it took place after normal hours.

labor & employment