Ruth V. McGregor

The case involved challenges by the Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting and others to the congressional and state legislative district maps created by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission after the 2000 census under the process established by Proposition 106. The Arizona Supreme Court considered the constitutional guidance provided to the Commission and the limits of judicial oversight of its decisions. The court held that judicial review is confined to determining whether the Commission followed the required procedural steps, such as starting with a grid map and adjusting it to accommodate the listed goals in order, without evaluating the Commission's discretionary balancing of those goals or its methodologies. The reasoning centered on the constitutional assignment of redistricting authority to the independent Commission and the need to respect its role while ensuring basic procedural compliance.

electionscivil rights

In this case, Brian Jeffrey Dann was convicted in 2001 of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree burglary after killing multiple victims. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, which required jury findings on aggravating factors for death sentences, Dann was resentenced in 2007 by a new jury that found the multiple-murders aggravator and determined that the mitigating circumstances were not substantial enough to warrant leniency. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences, holding that the jury's findings were proper and that any prior judge-only sentencing errors were harmless. The court rejected various constitutional challenges to the sentencing process and procedures.

criminal law

The case involved two consolidated wrongful death actions against the State of Arizona and its Department of Corrections, arising from alleged negligence in providing medical care to prisoners who died in custody. Before filing suit, the plaintiffs submitted notices of claim that specified settlement amounts and included supporting facts such as the decedents' ages, life expectancies, and annual loss calculations. The trial courts dismissed the complaints for failure to comply with A.R.S. § 12-821.01.A, and the court of appeals affirmed, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The court held that the statute requires only that a notice set forth a specific amount and the facts the claimant regards as supporting that amount, without mandating any particular level of detail or additional verification. Both notices satisfied this standard, and the court noted that public entities may request more information if needed while claimants face professional and evidentiary consequences for misrepresentations.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Thomas, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether a conviction for aggravated assault could qualify as a historical prior felony conviction to enhance sentences for later drug-related convictions under A.R.S. § 13-604.W.2(a), even though the assault acts occurred after the drug offenses. The trial court had applied the enhancement because the assault conviction preceded the drug convictions, but a divided court of appeals vacated the enhanced sentences, requiring that the underlying offense also predate the sentencing offenses. The Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and affirmed the trial court's sentences, reasoning that the statute's plain language imposes a timing requirement only on the dates of conviction for the enumerated felonies, not on when the offenses were committed.

criminal law

The case involved Phillip Alan Bocharski, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder and first-degree burglary. After an initial death sentence was reversed on appeal due to insufficient mitigation investigation funding, a new jury on resentencing found two aggravating factors—the murder was especially heinous or depraved and the victim was over seventy years old—and imposed the death penalty. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reduced the sentence to natural life imprisonment, reasoning that the aggravating evidence was limited while the mitigation evidence was substantial, and resolving any doubt in favor of a life sentence.

criminal law

This case arose when Michael Cullen and Jana Coronado sued Auto-Owners Insurance for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer denied Cullen's claim for underinsured motorist benefits under a policy covering a vehicle used by Coronado's family. The trial court dismissed the complaint under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and the court of appeals affirmed while discussing the pleading standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to address confusion over whether Twombly had replaced Arizona's notice pleading rule. The court held that Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) continues to require only a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, as previously interpreted by the court, and therefore vacated the portion of the appellate opinion citing Twombly while affirming the remainder of the judgment, including the dismissal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Leenhouts, the defendant faced an initial indictment for custodial interference under one subsection of A.R.S. § 13-1302 and later a supervening indictment adding a charge under a different subsection, without any arraignment on the new indictment. On the first day of trial, when Leenhouts first saw the supervening indictment, she objected to proceeding, but the trial court overruled the objection, the trial went forward on both charges, and she was convicted. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.1 requires arraignment within 30 days after an indictment and that the new charge under a distinct statutory subsection altered the nature of the case, so the same-day trial violated the rule. The court reasoned that the legislative history confirmed the two subsections define separate offenses, making the supervening indictment more than a mere formality.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

The case involved Steve Alan Boggs, who was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder for the 2002 killings of three employees at a fast-food restaurant in Mesa, Arizona, during a robbery, and sentenced to death. On automatic appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, Boggs raised numerous challenges to his convictions and sentences, including issues related to search and seizure, evidentiary rulings, jury selection and instructions, prosecutorial conduct, and the constitutionality of Arizona's death penalty scheme. The court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, concluding that none of the alleged errors warranted reversal and that the death penalty procedures and aggravating factors were constitutionally applied based on established precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Boggs, Steve Alan Boggs was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder and related charges for the 2002 robbery and shooting deaths of three fast-food restaurant employees in Mesa, Arizona. The jury found aggravating circumstances of pecuniary gain, especially cruel manner of death, and multiple homicides, leading to a death sentence. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the aggravators, that mitigating evidence did not warrant leniency, and that Arizona's death penalty scheme and procedures complied with constitutional requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Sarah Heath, who had been released on her own recognizance after pleading guilty to felony drug charges under a plea agreement that included participation in a treatment program. After her arrest on new felony drug charges, the State moved to hold her without bail pursuant to Article 2, Section 22.A.2 of the Arizona Constitution, which allows denial of bail when a person already admitted to bail on a felony is charged with another felony and the proof is evident or presumption great. The superior court granted the motion, finding Heath was on felony release and the evidentiary standard was met, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that release on one's own recognizance does not qualify as being admitted to bail. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and affirmed the superior court's order, concluding that the constitutional phrase "admitted to bail" encompasses release on recognizance because the provision's purpose is to prevent those released pending trial from committing additional felonies, and a narrower interpretation would lead to inconsistent and illogical results.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jean Cundiff, a deputy sheriff injured in a work-related car accident, who received workers' compensation benefits and later sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under her personal auto policy from State Farm after settling with the at-fault driver. State Farm's policy included an offset provision reducing UIM benefits by workers' compensation amounts received, which the insurer applied to limit payment. Cundiff challenged the provision as unenforceable under Arizona's Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Act (A.R.S. § 20-259.01). The Arizona Supreme Court held that the UMA's definition of UIM coverage precludes insurers from reducing such coverage based on workers' compensation benefits. The court vacated the court of appeals' decision, reversed the superior court's ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

In State v. Morris, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the convictions and death sentences of Cory Deonn Morris for the murders of five women whose bodies were found near his residence. A jury had convicted Morris after he gave conflicting statements to police about the victims' deaths, claiming both accidental overdoses and accidental strangulation during sex. On automatic appeal, Morris raised multiple challenges to his convictions, the sentencing process, and the constitutionality of Arizona's death penalty scheme, including arguments that aggravating factors were unconstitutionally broad and that the scheme failed to properly guide jury discretion. The court rejected all claims, relying on its prior decisions upholding the same statutory provisions, and affirmed the convictions and death sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Karen Hansen, who was convicted of fraud and theft and ordered to pay restitution; she appealed and sought to stay the payments under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.6, which provides that sentences to pay restitution are stayed pending appeal. The State argued that A.R.S. § 13-804.D, directing that restitution payments shall not be stayed if a notice of appeal is filed, should control instead. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the statute and rule conflict, and that the statute governs because it represents a valid exercise of the legislature’s rulemaking authority under the Victims’ Bill of Rights in the Arizona Constitution to ensure prompt restitution to victims. The court therefore affirmed the order denying a stay of the payments themselves while remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a notice of claim letter sent by Pamela McDonald to the Deer Valley Unified School District satisfied the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-821.01 before she could sue the District for wrongful termination under the Arizona Employment Protection Act. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the letter did not comply with the statute and therefore McDonald's claim was barred. The court reasoned that the statute requires a notice of claim to include both a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and facts supporting that amount, so the public entity can investigate liability, explore settlement, and engage in financial planning; McDonald's letter provided only approximate or minimum figures without supporting facts.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether Proposition 107, a voter-initiated constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and bar the state or its subdivisions from creating or recognizing any similar legal status for unmarried persons, satisfied the separate amendment rule in Article 21, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution. Opponents sought to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the measure on the 2006 ballot, arguing it improperly combined multiple distinct provisions. The superior court upheld the proposition as a single amendment under the test from Kerby v. Luhrs, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court held that the provisions were both topically related to preserving marriage and logically interrelated in their operation.

electionsfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Donna Jean Bennett's convictions for child abuse and first-degree felony murder after her two-year-old son died from head injuries; she was convicted based on evidence that she delayed seeking medical treatment while leaving the child with a roommate. Bennett filed a post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on the causation element of the felony murder charge. The Arizona Supreme Court held that her claim was not precluded by Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.a(3) and that she had stated a colorable claim, because a proper review of the evidence under relevant statutes and case law could support a finding of insufficient proof that her delay caused the death. The court reversed the denial of her petition and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel's performance was deficient and whether it prejudiced the outcome of her appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the Arizona Legislature and Governor Janet Napolitano over her partial veto of Section 5 of House Bill 2661, which amended state law to exempt certain newly hired employees from the merit system as part of broader legislation on state employee pay raises. The Legislature challenged the veto as exceeding the Governor's item veto authority under Article 5, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution, arguing the provision was not an appropriation. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and granted relief to the Legislature, holding that the veto was invalid and Section 5 must take effect. The court's reasoning centered on the constitutional definition of an 'item of appropriation,' which requires setting aside a specific sum of public revenue; Section 5 was deemed a substantive policy change to employment rules rather than an appropriation, even if it carried potential fiscal consequences through administrative rules.

labor & employment

In State v. McGill, Leroy Dean McGill was convicted of first-degree murder after setting fire to Charles Perez and another victim in a 2002 dispute involving accusations of theft and retaliation, leading to Perez's death from severe burns. A jury imposed the death sentence, which McGill automatically appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The court affirmed the conviction and capital sentence after reviewing challenges to evidence and procedures in both the guilt and penalty phases. The majority rejected claims that certain out-of-court statements violated constitutional rights, while a dissent argued that testimonial hearsay admitted during sentencing infringed the Confrontation Clause and warranted a new penalty hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In this special action, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed procedural issues in post-conviction hearings under A.R.S. § 13-703.02 to determine whether two death-sentenced brothers, Michael and Rudi Apelt, were mentally retarded following Atkins v. Virginia. The trial court had ruled that expert IQ score reports alone could not establish a rebuttable presumption of mental retardation and that lay witness testimony about the defendants' adaptive behavior after age eighteen was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. The Supreme Court held that a defendant may establish a rebuttable presumption of mental retardation based solely on IQ scores from tests administered to adults and that evidence of post-age-eighteen adaptive behavior from lay witnesses can be relevant to the mental retardation determination under the statute. The court vacated the trial court's orders limiting such evidence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation of the statute's requirements for expert evaluations and adaptive behavior assessments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ruben Myran Johnson, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, assisting a criminal syndicate or street gang, burglary, and armed robbery after he and accomplices robbed a massage parlor and later killed a witness to prevent her testimony. A separate jury found three aggravating factors and imposed the death penalty for the murder, with consecutive prison terms on the other counts. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that Johnson's numerous claims of error regarding jury instructions, victim impact evidence, aggravating factor findings, and other procedural issues were either waived, unsupported, or foreclosed by precedent. The court concluded that the trial proceedings complied with constitutional requirements and that the evidence supported the jury's determinations.

criminal lawprocedure