Lorna E. Lockwood

In State v. Helmick, the defendant was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon and first-degree burglary after an incident at a bar where he held a knife to a patron's throat and later lunged at an officer. On appeal, he challenged the constitutionality of criminal discovery rules, the reinstatement of dismissed counts, the denial of an insanity defense, double punishment under A.R.S. § 13-1641, and the length of his consecutive sentences. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the discovery rules provided adequate reciprocity, the motion to dismiss was untimely, the offenses had distinct elements so double punishment did not apply, and the sentences were within statutory limits without an abuse of discretion. The court rejected all assignments of error and upheld the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Stolze, the defendant was convicted of three counts of furnishing marijuana to minors and sentenced to prison. On appeal, he argued that due process was violated by an incomplete trial transcript, that a child witness's testimony should have been stricken due to alleged coaching, that the jury was biased because of acquaintanceship with a prosecution witness, that a variance in proof denied him a fair trial, and that the evidence was insufficient. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court had provided an adequate record, found no evidence of coaching or prejudice, determined there was no showing of juror bias, noted the absence of any continuance motion, and concluded that the state's evidence was substantial enough to support the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Rios, three indigent Mexican nationals were convicted by a trial court of importing and transporting marijuana after being apprehended near the U.S.-Mexico border based on footprints linking them to hidden marijuana stashes. The sole issue on appeal was whether the defendants were denied due process when the trial court effectively refused their request for a continuous interpreter during proceedings, despite their limited English proficiency and the fact that all prior interactions with authorities had occurred in Spanish. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that an indigent defendant unable to understand English must be provided with translation services to meaningfully participate in their defense, including during witness testimony and cross-examination. The court reasoned that relying on defense counsel to translate simultaneously was impractical and impaired effective assistance of counsel, and that the appointment of an interpreter is a county expense not deductible from appointed counsel's fees.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Jackson, the defendant appealed his convictions on multiple counts of burglary and armed robbery, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person and vehicle, in allowing certain in-court identifications, in admitting evidence of other uncharged acts, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on descriptions of a suspect vehicle and items taken in nearby burglaries, making the searches incident to arrest and of the vehicle lawful under exigent circumstances; that the identifications had independent origins; that evidence of other burglaries was admissible to provide the complete story of events on the night in question; and that the jury was properly instructed regarding one directed verdict count. The court found no reversible error in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William C. Farni, who was convicted of robbery under Arizona statutes and sentenced to a prison term of forty years to life. On appeal, Farni argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court reviewed the record and determined that the claimed errors were either meritless or amounted to reasonable tactical decisions by counsel, such as choices about voir dire, opening statements, cross-examination, and admissions of prior convictions. It concluded that the representation did not fall to the level of a farce or sham, and the conviction resulted from the strength of the evidence against the defendant. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case is a follow-up to the 1973 Boykin decision, in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that Department of Public Safety officers were entitled to compensatory time off (but not cash overtime pay) for hours worked beyond eight per day, directing the agency to implement a schedule while noting that monetary compensation required legislative action. After remand, the trial court approved a plan granting hour-for-hour compensatory time to current employees and also ordered cash payments to employees who had terminated before the 1973 decision plus $25,000 in attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court exceeded the scope of the prior mandate by awarding cash compensation to terminated employees, which violated statutes prohibiting overtime pay without legislative approval, and by granting attorneys' fees without statutory authority; however, the compensatory-time provisions for ongoing employees and the class-action notice procedures were upheld. The court therefore remanded with directions to vacate the awards for terminated employees and attorneys' fees.

labor & employmentprocedure