This case involved an appeal by defendant Charles Locks from his 1963 misdemeanor conviction under Arizona Revised Statute 13-532 for exhibiting and keeping for sale obscene or indecent magazines, at a time when the statute provided no definition of those terms. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the conviction and dismissed the case. The court reasoned that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and indefinite under due process principles because it failed to provide a clear standard, leaving individuals to guess at the meaning of obscenity; it further held that the materials were not obscene as a matter of law when judged by the federal test requiring that the dominant theme appeal to prurient interest based on national contemporary community standards, as established in cases such as Roth v. United States and Jacobellis v. Ohio, and that the trial court's jury instructions improperly allowed the jury to apply undefined local standards.

criminal lawfree speech

This case involved a challenge by motor carriers Pacific Motor Trucking Company and Consolidated Freightways to an order by the Arizona Corporation Commission that sought to restrict carriers holding broad 'property or freight' certificates from transporting petroleum products in bulk unless their certificates explicitly allowed it or they had done so before August 1959. The Commission had issued the proposed general order after a show-cause hearing on complaints from competing carriers, framing it as a regulatory measure. The superior court granted a peremptory writ of prohibition barring the Commission from limiting the carriers' certificates, denying tariff participation, or adopting the order. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the rule was invalid because it contravened the state's established 'regulated monopoly' policy by severing a portion of an existing carrier's market and permitting additional competition without first allowing the original carrier an opportunity to serve that market segment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved disputes between plaintiffs and defendants over a cattle pasturing agreement and a farm lease in Cochise County, Arizona, including claims for damages from alleged interference with cattle shipping, unlawful sale of farm machinery, and amounts owed under the contracts, as well as a third claim for fertilizer value. The defendants, residents of Pinal County, challenged venue in Graham County and appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to the plaintiffs. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that there was no actionable duress from the defendants' threat of litigation to enforce perceived rights and thus insufficient evidence to submit the interference damages issue to the jury; it also noted that the general verdict prevented determining which claims supported the award.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a real estate broker suing a married couple for a commission on the sale of their community property, which the husband had listed without the wife's signature. The trial court ruled in favor of the broker, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment against the community. The court reasoned that the wife was estopped from denying the husband's authority because she knew of the listing and accepted the benefits of the sale. It also noted that the contract was for personal services rather than an encumbrance requiring both spouses' signatures under state law.

family lawproperty

This case involved real estate brokers suing property sellers for a commission after the sellers completed a sale to a buyer whom one broker had contacted and interested in the property. The trial court entered judgment for the brokers on a jury verdict, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the brokers were not entitled to recover. The court reasoned that under an open listing, a broker must show he produced a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase on the listed terms, and that the broker's fiduciary duty to the seller required informing the seller before the sale that the broker had produced the buyer, so the seller could account for the commission in negotiations. Because the sellers lacked this knowledge and the terms varied somewhat from the listing, the trial court should have submitted the issue to the jury via the sellers' requested instruction; the court also dismissed one broker for lack of privity with the sellers.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Howard Daniels, who was convicted in superior court of illegal possession of narcotics including heroin and marijuana. He appealed on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, which was based on the failure to file a transcript of the preliminary hearing at least ten days before trial as requested. The court reversed the judgment, holding that Rule 28 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the defendant an absolute right to have the magistrate hearing reduced to writing and filed. Denial of a continuance for that purpose is not discretionary and automatically prejudices the defendant by depriving him of a substantial right.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Edward Cumbo, who was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon under Arizona law and sentenced to eight to ten years in prison. On appeal, Cumbo challenged the trial court's decision to proceed with the trial in his absence, the admission of evidence regarding other acts of misconduct, and the introduction of a gun as evidence. The court determined that Cumbo had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings after being informed of the trial date, allowing the trial to continue under the rules of criminal procedure, and found no merit in the evidentiary claims due to lack of timely objections and sufficient connection of the evidence to the crime. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Archie Cravin's appeal from a conviction for assault with intent to murder, arising from an incident in which he resisted arrest by a deputy sheriff, took the officer's gun, and shot him during a struggle. The defendant had also been charged with resisting arrest and grand theft but was convicted only on the assault count. The court affirmed the conviction and 15-20 year sentence. It held that objections to the preliminary hearing, including lack of probable cause and inability to cross-examine the injured officer, were not raised timely under the rules of criminal procedure and were therefore waived. The court further found the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the element of intent when viewed in the light most favorable to the state.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Charles Monks, who was convicted of robbery by force, violence or fear after a jury trial and sentenced to 30 to 35 years in prison based on his third felony conviction in Arizona. Monks appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessively severe and constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that sentencing decisions are within the trial judge's discretion and will not be modified absent an abuse, and that a sentence within statutory limits (here, a minimum of five years with no maximum under A.R.S. § 13-643) is not cruel or unusual. The court noted a prior similar case upholding a 20-to-30-year sentence for robbery on a third felony conviction and found no abuse here given the defendant's record.

criminal law