James Moeller

The case concerned the constitutionality of Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution, adopted in 1988, which designated English as the official state language and required all state and local government officials and employees to conduct government business only in English. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the provision violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by restricting non-English speakers' access to government and limiting the political speech of public officials and employees. The court further ruled that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it burdened the core First Amendment rights of a specific class without advancing a legitimate state interest. The decision emphasized that it did not require any government entity to provide services in languages other than English and expressed no view on narrower English-only rules.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved multiple Arizona school districts seeking a declaration that they were not required to release teachers' birth dates to a broadcasting company under the state's Public Records Law. The company sought the information to perform criminal background checks on teachers following an incident involving a substitute teacher who was a registered sex offender. The trial court balanced the teachers' privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure and ruled in favor of nondisclosure. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the privacy interests in birth dates, which are personal identifying information provided with an expectation of confidentiality, outweighed the public need for disclosure by the districts, particularly since the information was available from other sources.

free speechcivil rights

In Sanchez v. City of Tucson, a minor child was catastrophically injured while crossing a state route intersection in Tucson, prompting a negligence suit against the City for breaching its alleged duty to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition by failing to install a traffic light. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, which the court of appeals affirmed on the basis that the City owed no duty absent control over the state route. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that factual issues existed as to whether the City assumed a duty through its intergovernmental agreement with the State for maintenance, patterns of joint control, and state authorization to install signals.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Altieri, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of transporting and possessing marijuana for sale based on evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The stop was initiated solely on an anonymous tip describing the driver, vehicle, and alleged contraband, with officers confirming only readily observable details before pulling the car over. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that the anonymous tip lacked the predictive details or other indicia of reliability needed to establish reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, so the evidence should have been suppressed. The court distinguished the case from precedents like Draper and Alabama v. White, noting that the tip provided only neutral, existing facts observable by any member of the public rather than private or future information.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a claim by Fred Denton, acting as guardian and conservator for his incapacitated wife Frances, against a nursing home and related parties for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of Arizona's elder abuse statute arising from alleged abusive and negligent care that caused her severe injuries including falls, dehydration, and a serious bedsore. Frances died while the lawsuit was pending, and the defendants sought to dismiss the claim for pain and suffering damages on the ground that such claims do not survive under Arizona's general survival statute. The Arizona Supreme Court held that a representative of an elder abuse victim may recover damages for the victim's pain and suffering even after the victim's death. The court reasoned that the specific provisions and policy of the more recent elder abuse statute, which expressly authorizes recovery of actual, consequential, and punitive damages, control over the older, general survival statute that generally bars such recovery.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned whether a defendant charged with misdemeanor simple assault, designated as domestic violence under Arizona law, was entitled to a jury trial in municipal court due to potential consequences under the federal firearms prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The Arizona Supreme Court accepted special action jurisdiction and held that no jury trial was required. The court reasoned that Arizona's established test for jury trial entitlement in misdemeanors, focusing on incarceration length, moral turpitude, and relation to common-law crimes, was not altered by the federal statute, as the firearms restriction did not constitute an additional penalty severe enough to make the offense serious under state standards. The decision reaffirmed that federal law does not compel changes to Arizona's jury trial rules for such cases.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Robert Getz, who was convicted of sexual abuse under A.R.S. § 13-1404(A) for touching the breasts of a 16-year-old girl who had consented to the acts, along with other charges involving younger children. The Arizona Supreme Court considered whether consent is a defense to such charges when the victim is 14 to 17 years old, given the statute's requirement of acting "without consent" for victims in that age range and the affirmative defense in A.R.S. § 13-1407(B) addressing incapacity due to age. The court held that the state must prove lack of consent for victims 14 or older, that the affirmative defense does not negate actual consent, and that the statutes' plain language permits consent by a 16-year-old, avoiding potential vagueness issues. Because the evidence showed undisputed consent, the court ordered acquittal on the four counts involving the 16-year-old. The decision vacated the court of appeals' ruling on this issue and remanded for resentencing on the remaining convictions.

criminal law

In State v. Terrazas, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the conviction of defendant Mario Terrazas for felony theft of a truck, where the trial court had admitted evidence of prior uncharged acts involving other stolen vehicles found on his property. The court of appeals had affirmed using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for admitting such other-act evidence under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Supreme Court held that, in criminal cases, prior bad acts must be proven by clear and convincing evidence before they may be admitted, adopting the standard from its earlier decision in State v. Hughes rather than the federal Huddleston approach. The ruling rests on the need to protect defendants from undue prejudice while applying a higher threshold than the civil standard under Rule 104(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned amendments to Arizona's Constitutional Defense Council (CDC) statute that removed the Attorney General's oversight role in selecting and supervising outside counsel, approving expenditures, and deciding whether to pursue litigation against federal actions. The Attorney General petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing the changes violated separation of powers by allowing the legislature to perform executive functions. The court held that the amended statute was unconstitutional because directing and controlling litigation on behalf of the state is an executive power that cannot be exercised by the legislative branch. It reasoned that the original structure properly allocated authority to the Attorney General as the state's chief legal officer under the constitution, and the amendments improperly transferred that authority to a legislative body. The court also addressed standing, finding the Attorney General had standing to challenge the law affecting his office.

federal power

This case consolidated appeals from two criminal trials to address whether defendants may cross-examine victims about refusing pretrial interviews. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that victims have a constitutional right to refuse interviews under the Victim's Bill of Rights, but defendants may inquire into the refusal at trial if relevant to bias, credibility, or similar issues under the rules of evidence; if the refusal is mentioned, the trial court must give a jury instruction about the constitutional right. The core reasoning was that neither the constitution nor A.R.S. § 13-4433(E) creates an absolute prohibition or automatic right to introduce the fact of refusal, requiring case-by-case relevance determinations while protecting confrontation rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Seymour Harold Adler, who in 1987 pleaded guilty to securities violations in Arizona and was placed on probation. After moving to California, his probation was rejected by that state, leading Arizona to file a revocation petition in 1988 based on reporting and other violations, but no hearing occurred while Adler was later serving a federal sentence. Adler repeatedly sought a prompt hearing or final disposition, but the state declined to pursue custody or proceed, resulting in a hearing only in 1995—over six years later—after which probation was revoked and consecutive sentences imposed. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the state's unreasonable delay violated Adler's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requiring a timely revocation hearing as established in cases like Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, and remanded for dismissal of the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jones, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault, multiple counts of child abuse, and felony murder after evidence showed he inflicted fatal injuries, including a ruptured intestine and genital trauma, on his partner's four-year-old daughter while she was in his care, leading to her death from peritonitis. The trial court sentenced him to death based on findings that the murder was especially cruel and the victim was under age fifteen, with no mitigating factors established. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the charges, that the child abuse and sexual assault convictions properly served as predicate felonies for felony murder, and that the aggravating factors outweighed any mitigation. The court rejected challenges regarding the definition of "care" under the child abuse statute, evidentiary rulings, and the applicability of the death penalty in this context.

criminal law

In State v. Detrich, the defendant was retried after his initial convictions for first-degree murder and kidnapping were reversed on appeal (while his sexual abuse conviction was affirmed), and a second jury again found him guilty of first-degree murder and kidnapping based on evidence that he abducted, sexually assaulted, and fatally stabbed the victim after a drug transaction went wrong. The trial court sentenced him to death for the murder and 21 years in prison for kidnapping. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence supported the verdicts, the trial court did not err in its handling of jury selection, evidence, or instructions, and that the sole aggravating factor (commission during kidnapping) outweighed the mitigating evidence upon independent review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether fraternity pledges could be held liable in a wrongful death action for injuries caused when a minor fraternity member, who had consumed alcohol at a Delta Tau Delta party, caused a fatal car accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to the pledges, finding insufficient evidence of their involvement in furnishing alcohol to minors. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the pledges had not contributed to the social fund or participated in planning before the party, had no voting power or control over the event, and made payments only afterward that could not have caused the injury. The court rejected theories of joint venture or conspiracy under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876, concluding that the evidence lacked sufficient probative value for a reasonable jury to find liability.

torts & liability

This case involved the convictions of Andre Lamont Minnitt and Christopher Don McCrimmon for three counts of first-degree murder and related armed robbery, aggravated robbery, and burglary charges in a capital case. During jury polling after the initial verdicts, Juror No. 1 expressed uncertainty and could not affirm the verdicts, leading to defense motions for mistrial that were denied. The trial judge met privately with the juror, who remained indecisive, then reconvened the jury with additional instructions and ordered further deliberations, after which all jurors affirmed the guilty verdicts. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the totality of circumstances showed coercion of Juror No. 1, constituting an abuse of discretion in denying the mistrial motions, and therefore reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the 1992 robbery and murders of three individuals at the El Grande Market in Tucson, for which seventeen-year-old Martin Raul Soto-Fong was convicted in adult court of three counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and related offenses, resulting in death sentences. On direct appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the admission of informant testimony, fingerprint evidence handling, jury instructions, and sufficiency of evidence for aggravating factors. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence—including fingerprints on bags and food stamps at the scene, and statements from co-perpetrators reported by an informant—supported the jury's findings of guilt and the statutory aggravators of pecuniary motive, especially heinous/cruel/depraved manner, and multiple homicides. It also upheld the death sentences after independent review of mitigation, including the defendant's age and lack of prior record, concluding they did not outweigh the aggravators.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ives, the defendant was charged with four counts of child molestation involving three young victims, with the state also seeking to introduce testimony from a fourth child about prior similar acts. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to sever the counts, ruling that they and the prior acts were part of a common scheme or plan under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.3(a)(3) and admissible under Evidence Rule 404(b). The Arizona Supreme Court held that the incidents lacked the required connection for joinder or admission as other acts, as they occurred separately over many years without evidence of an overarching plan. Because the improper joinder and evidence could have affected the verdict, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for new trials.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge to an investigatory stop by police officers who approached the defendant after he emerged from bushes at night in a residential area, walked down the middle of the street, and stared at officers conducting a traffic stop. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress narcotics evidence found after he fled, holding that the encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave under the circumstances and that the officers lacked the required articulable suspicion to justify the stop. The court vacated the court of appeals' decision reversing the suppression order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a defendant on probation for theft who was ordered to pay restitution to a bank; the trial court extended his probation term by three years and imposed a balloon payment without providing notice to the defendant or his counsel. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the ex parte extension was invalid because it violated the defendant's due process rights. The court reasoned that although state law permits extending probation when restitution remains unpaid, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before such a modification, drawing from precedents on probation conditions and distinguishing federal cases that reached a different conclusion. As a result, the subsequent probation violation finding and further extensions were vacated as they rested on an invalid order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Toribio Rodriguez, who was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of sexual assault, and burglary after evidence linked him to the 1988 killing of Dawn Dearing in Tucson. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether police violated the defendant's rights by interrogating him without Miranda warnings during a court-ordered detention for physical samples. The court held that the statements obtained were inadmissible due to the Miranda violation and that their use at trial was not harmless error. It therefore vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial, while rejecting other claims such as challenges to the victim's prior sexual history evidence.

criminal lawprocedure