Thomas A. Zlaket

Michael Gene Blakley was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of sexual assault of a sixteen-month-old child and sentenced to death on the murder count plus consecutive life terms on the assaults. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction and remanded for further proceedings but affirmed the sexual assault convictions and sentences. The court found reversible error in the trial proceedings related to pretrial publicity and venue determinations, while concluding that the assault convictions were properly supported and that certain evidentiary rulings, including exclusion of third-party culpability evidence under Rules 401-403, were not an abuse of discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Danny Montano's appeal from convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder in the 1995 stabbing death of inmate Raymond Jackson inside an Arizona prison cell. The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed claims including pre-indictment delay, the admission of videotaped preliminary hearing testimony from two witnesses later deemed unavailable, and various evidentiary rulings such as the use of graphic photographs and references to gang affiliation. The court held that the nearly two-year delay did not violate due process absent demonstrable prejudice or improper state motive, that the witnesses were properly unavailable due to their relocation to Mexico, and that no fundamental error occurred in the trial proceedings, thereby affirming the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Wayne Prince, who was convicted of first-degree murder of his 13-year-old stepdaughter and attempted first-degree murder of his wife after a domestic dispute in which he shot both following prior abuse. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed claims regarding the admission of prior bad acts evidence (limited by the trial court to the attempted murder count), the adequacy of limiting jury instructions, joinder of offenses, and other trial and evidentiary issues. The court affirmed the convictions and the 21-year prison sentence for attempted murder, concluding that the instructions were sufficient, objections were waived where not raised, and prior rulings on similar issues controlled, while deferring review of the death sentence to a supplemental opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

In this consolidated case, Samuel Viramontes and Jason Beck were each convicted of first-degree murder in Arizona superior court; the state did not seek the death penalty, and each received a natural life sentence after the trial courts considered aggravating factors drawn from A.R.S. § 13-702. The Arizona Supreme Court held that, under A.R.S. § 13-1105(C) and § 13-703, the only aggravating factors permitted in a non-capital first-degree murder sentencing are those listed in § 13-703 itself. The court reasoned that the statutory text expressly channels first-degree murder sentencing procedures to § 13-703 and contains no indication that the legislature intended the general felony aggravators in § 13-702 to apply. Because the trial courts had relied on improper factors, the sentences were vacated and the cases remanded for resentencing under the correct statutory scheme.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a negligence lawsuit by Kiera Lane against the City of Tempe and its former employee Daniel Serrano arising from a car accident, where the only theory against the City was respondeat superior. After mandatory arbitration under Arizona rules, where Serrano did not appear in person but his counsel participated and other evidence was presented, the arbitrator awarded damages to Lane. Lane moved to strike the defendants' appeal for a trial de novo, arguing waiver due to Serrano's absence. The Arizona Supreme Court held that Serrano had adequately participated through counsel and discovery responses, and since neither party subpoenaed him, his non-appearance did not waive the right to appeal, vacating the court of appeals decision and remanding for trial de novo.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved the appeal of Scott Alan Lehr's convictions and sentences for numerous crimes, including three first-degree murders, multiple sexual assaults, kidnappings, and aggravated assaults committed against ten women over the course of a year. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed most of the convictions and sentences from both the capital and non-capital trials, including the death penalty for the murder of B.C., based on sufficient evidence such as DNA matches, victim identifications, and license plate details, as well as the presence of aggravating factors that outweighed weak mitigating circumstances like the defendant's family role and lack of prior record. However, the court reversed convictions and sentences on seven specific counts due to identified errors and remanded those for further proceedings. The decision rested on review of the trial record, statutory aggravating factors under Arizona law, and the determination that the death penalty was appropriate absent sufficient mitigation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arises in the ongoing general adjudication of water rights in Arizona's Gila River system and source. The court addresses the standard for quantifying federally reserved water rights on Indian reservations, reviewing a trial court ruling that such rights are measured by the water needed to irrigate all practicably irrigable acreage (PIA) on each reservation. It examines the Winters Doctrine, under which the federal government impliedly reserves unappropriated water appurtenant to lands withdrawn for a federal purpose, and contrasts this with state prior appropriation rules that tie rights to beneficial use and seniority. The court concludes that Indian reservations were created as permanent homelands and that the PIA standard is the appropriate measure for determining the quantity of reserved water, though the inquiry remains fact-specific to each reservation.

environmentfederal power

The case concerned whether the Arizona Corporation Commission must determine the fair value of in-state property for competitive local exchange carriers when establishing rates, as mandated by the state constitution, and whether this requirement conflicts with or is preempted by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Arizona Supreme Court held that article XV, section 14 of the Arizona Constitution requires a fair value determination for every public service corporation, including those operating in competitive markets, and that this constitutional obligation is not preempted by federal law. The court reasoned that the constitutional language is unambiguous and mandatory, that fair value data can be ascertained objectively, and that the commission retains discretion to use such information in setting just and reasonable rates without creating a barrier to competition under 47 U.S.C. § 253(a).

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved certified questions from federal court arising from a car accident caused by Timothy Fisher, president of Fisher Surveying, Inc., who was killed while driving under the influence of drugs during work hours and injured passenger Devin Haralson. The Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether punitive damages claims survive against a deceased tortfeasor's estate and whether the employer corporation can face vicarious liability for such damages based on the employee's conduct. The court held that punitive damages may be assessed against the estate, rejecting prior precedent in Braun v. Moreno because such awards serve deterrence, societal condemnation, and public policy goals beyond mere punishment of the individual. It further concluded that the corporation could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior principles, even after the employee's death, as the underlying tortious conduct occurred within the scope of employment.

torts & liability

In State v. Green, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed a conviction for sexual abuse arising from an alleged 1997 incident in which the defendant was accused of entering a bedroom and inappropriately touching a sleeping woman. Before trial, the court allowed the prosecution to impeach the defendant with two 1982 felony convictions if he testified, but only in sanitized form without naming the offenses. The defendant testified and denied the allegations, leading to a guilty verdict on the sexual abuse count. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial judge abused his discretion under Arizona Rule of Evidence 609(b) by admitting the remote convictions because their probative value did not substantially outweigh their prejudicial effect, particularly given the absence of any intervening misconduct by the defendant and the fact that the centrality of credibility alone was insufficient to meet the heightened standard.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the Arizona Supreme Court's review of Phillip Alan Bocharski's convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary in the 1995 stabbing death of 84-year-old Freeda Brown at her campsite, as well as his death sentence. The court examined multiple trial issues, including the admissibility of graphic autopsy and crime scene photographs, the defendant's statements to witnesses, and the handling of victim impact evidence during sentencing. It ultimately affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the guilt phase, but remanded the case for resentencing due to improper admission of certain evidence and inadequate consideration of mitigating factors under state law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a special action challenging the Arizona Legislative Council's analysis of Proposition 203, concerning English language education in public schools, for inclusion in the state's voter information pamphlet. Petitioners argued that the analysis violated the impartiality requirement of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-124(B) by misstating existing bilingual education law. The court ordered that the first paragraph of the analysis be deleted or revised because it misleadingly implied that bilingual instruction was required in all classes, whereas state law permits English as a second language programs conducted entirely in English. The court dismissed the remaining claims as barred by laches due to unreasonable delay in filing that would have prejudiced timely preparation of the pamphlet.

electionsprocedure

This case involved a special action challenging the impartiality of analyses prepared by the Arizona Legislative Council and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff for the voter information pamphlet on the Healthy Arizona Initiative-2, which aimed to expand AHCCCS eligibility using tobacco settlement funds. The Arizona Supreme Court held that certain paragraphs in both analyses were misleading and ordered them deleted or revised. The reasoning centered on the statutory requirement under A.R.S. § 19-124(B) for an impartial analysis, finding that the descriptions improperly suggested inevitable state funding needs without mentioning potential federal matching funds, thus violating the mandate for neutrality in ballot proposal descriptions.

electionshealthcare

This case involved a challenge to the Arizona Legislative Council's analysis of the Citizens Growth Management Initiative for inclusion in a voter publicity pamphlet prior to the election. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the first paragraph of the analysis violated the statutory requirement of impartiality under A.R.S. § 19-124(B) and ordered it deleted or revised. The court reasoned that the paragraph described existing land-use laws in detail without referencing the initiative itself, implying that current regulations adequately addressed growth issues and thereby constituting advocacy rather than a neutral explanation. Jurisdiction was based on the court's authority to review the Council's administrative function for compliance with the impartiality mandate.

electionsprocedure

The case involved the division of marital assets upon the divorce of Byron and Corinne Kelly, who had both worked for the federal government during their marriage. Byron participated in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), while Corinne participated in a system that included social security benefits, which federal law prohibits state courts from dividing or offsetting in divorce proceedings. The trial court treated Byron's full CSRS pension as community property but excluded Corinne's social security from consideration, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court held that a portion of Byron's CSRS benefits could be treated as separate property to account for the inequity from the social security exemption, enabling an equitable distribution of community property under Arizona law, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this approach.

family lawpropertyfederal power

The case involved claims of medical negligence by Jared Reinen, a Jehovah’s Witness who refused blood products, and later his estate, against orthopedic surgeons, an internist, a nurse, and a hospital following complications after surgery for a broken femur. The trial court dismissed claims against some defendants for lack of expert testimony on the standard of care and absence of proximate cause, and the jury returned defense verdicts on the rest. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that objections to the plaintiff's expert were waived by not being made contemporaneously, that the trial court improperly directed verdicts on causation, and that jury instructions on assumption of the risk improperly commented on the evidence and violated the constitutional right to have the jury decide that issue. The court remanded for a new trial against all defendants.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Poyson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and armed robbery after participating in the killings of three people to steal a truck. The trial court imposed the death penalty for the murders, prompting an appeal challenging the admission of the defendant's statements to police, the sufficiency of evidence for aggravating factors such as pecuniary gain and cruelty, and various jury instructions on mitigation and sentencing. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, concluding that the confessions were voluntary, the aggravating circumstances were established beyond a reasonable doubt, and the mitigating evidence was not substantial enough to call for leniency.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between an ex-wife (Guillermina) and second wife (Ana) over entitlement to surviving spouse death benefits from a public safety personnel retirement plan after the death of the plan participant (Raul Parada). Following the 1987 divorce, which awarded Guillermina half of Raul's retirement benefits and required him to name her as beneficiary of half any death benefits, an attempted assignment signed by Ana was later ruled invalid under A.R.S. § 38-850. The trial court and court of appeals found Guillermina retained a community property interest in the death benefits to the extent her share of retirement benefits was incomplete, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plan's surviving spouse payments are not divisible community property and the divorce decree could not effectively transfer any portion to the ex-wife. The court concluded that Ana, as the designated surviving spouse, was entitled to the full benefits without obligation to share them.

family lawproperty

The case involved a defendant convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, and related crimes against two women in their home, who received consecutive sentences for certain kidnapping and sexual assault counts and argued that this violated double jeopardy because the offenses were essentially the same. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the consecutive sentences, concluding that they did not constitute multiple punishments for the same offense. The court reasoned that under A.R.S. § 13-1304, kidnapping qualifies as a completed class 2 felony once the restraint and intent elements in subsection (A) are met, while the voluntary release provisions in subsection (B) serve only to classify the felony level for sentencing and do not form additional elements of the crime. Applying the Blockburger test, the court found that the kidnapping and sexual assault statutes each require proof of a fact the other does not.

criminal law

This case is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding against Alicia F. Tocco, an Arizona attorney accused by the State Bar of multiple violations of the Ethical Rules, including competence, conflicts of interest, candor, and aiding fraud, stemming from her representation of clients in financial distress who pledged assets and later entered bankruptcy. A hearing committee found no credible evidence of any misconduct and recommended dismissing all charges, but the Disciplinary Commission independently made additional findings, concluded that Tocco violated ER 1.2, 1.7, 3.3, and 4.1, and recommended censure plus probation. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the Commission exceeded its authority by making new factual findings instead of reviewing the committee's findings for clear error under Rule 53(d)(2), rejected the Commission's conclusions as unsupported by the record, and adopted the hearing committee's recommendation to dismiss all charges in full.

procedure