Rebecca White Berch

The case involved Carl Lee Blackman, who was convicted of kidnapping and two counts of sexual assault based on an incident in which a 15-year-old victim with mild to moderate mental retardation was forced to engage in sex with the defendant and multiple other teenage boys over several hours in an abandoned house. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's rulings on jury selection (striking one prospective juror and retaining another), denial of severance from co-defendants (due to admission of a co-defendant's statement), and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court properly applied standards for juror impartiality, that any Bruton error from the co-defendant statement was harmless because the jury could follow limiting instructions and the evidence was overwhelming, and that no misconduct occurred. The court exercised jurisdiction under the Arizona Constitution and relevant statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute within the Arizona Libertarian Party over which faction's chosen leaders were entitled to receive voter registration data, stemming from challenges to state statutes requiring specific procedures for selecting party representatives like precinct committeemen and committee chairs. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the statutes in question are constitutional and mandatory for parties with continuing ballot access status. The court reasoned that the statutes impose only incidental burdens on First Amendment rights of speech and association, further important governmental interests in regulating elections, and use mandatory language that must be followed. It reversed only the part holding that the Libertarian Party need not comply with the process.

electionsfree speech

This case involved shareholders of an Arizona air conditioning corporation suing another major shareholder and its board representative for breaches of fiduciary duty, material misrepresentations, negligence, failure to exploit licensed patents, and violations of the Arizona Securities Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had not properly pursued derivative claims under A.R.S. § 10-742 and had not alleged cognizable individual harms. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the patent exploitation count because no contractual or fiduciary duty ran directly from the defendants to the patent owner, but reversed as to the other counts, holding that certain alleged harms to voting power, stock options, salary, and employment were individual rather than derivative and that the securities claim could proceed; it also noted that the corporation was not closely held so no exception to derivative rules applied.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Jason Wozniak was arrested and charged with driving while impaired and driving with a drug or its metabolite in his body under Arizona statutes. A municipal court jury acquitted him of the impairment charge but convicted him of the metabolite charge, resulting in a jail sentence that the superior court affirmed on appeal. The court of appeals upheld the conviction and sentence, finding the screening urinalysis admissible under the Frye standard for scientific evidence because no challenge was made to the underlying scientific principles, that sufficient evidence supported the verdict, and that the offense was a driving violation not eligible for mandatory probation under A.R.S. § 13-901.01.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the Alberta Securities Commission seeking to enforce in Arizona a Canadian judgment for investigative costs against Lawrence Ryckman, who had been found to have manipulated securities markets, and his wife Elaine. The Ryckmans appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment domesticating the Alberta judgment, arguing due process violations in the Canadian proceedings, the need for additional discovery time, and limits on enforcing the judgment against community or separate property. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the Canadian process provided a full and fair opportunity to be heard with no demonstrated fraud or prejudice, that denying a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, and that the judgment could be enforced against community property and Lawrence Ryckman's separate property but not Elaine Ryckman's separate property.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved David Benak's appeal of his sentence for possession of a dangerous drug after a jury convicted him of that offense along with resisting arrest and drug paraphernalia possession. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have imposed probation rather than an eight-year prison term because the State did not allege before trial that Benak had a prior conviction for a violent crime rendering him ineligible under A.R.S. § 13-901.01. The court reasoned that state law requires such allegations of violent priors to be charged in the indictment or information to provide notice, and the State's pretrial allegation of nondangerous felony priors was insufficient to satisfy this requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kevin McDonald, who was serving a life sentence and sought habeas corpus relief after the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency unanimously recommended commutation of his sentence to 8.5 years under a disproportionality review statute. McDonald argued that former Governor Symington's denial was untimely (beyond the 90-day statutory window) and invalid due to lack of proper signature and attestation, which would have made the commutation automatic. The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition, holding that the 90-day period began upon the governor's receipt of the recommendation on August 17, 1995, making the November 15 denial timely, and that the governor's action met statutory requirements without needing additional formalities. The court rejected hearsay challenges to the receipt date and emphasized deference to the trial court's factual findings on evidence. A dissent argued the denial lacked required gubernatorial signature and attestation, rendering it ineffective.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Jose Samano, who was convicted of burglary, armed robbery, theft, and kidnapping after he and an accomplice entered an apartment, restrained a woman and her two-year-old son at gunpoint, and stole items including the woman's truck. The trial court applied the dangerous crimes against children sentencing enhancement to one kidnapping count, imposing a seventeen-year consecutive term. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-604.01 did not apply because the kidnapping was incidental to the other crimes and not targeted at the child. The court reasoned that, following precedents like State v. Williams, the statute requires conduct aimed at or focused on the minor victim, which was absent here, and noted that the kidnapping statute already incorporates an age-based enhancement without needing a second one.

criminal law

The case involved a petition under Arizona's Sexually Violent Persons Act alleging that Walter was an SVP, following which the trial court appointed three mental health experts to evaluate him. Walter moved for an order requiring the experts to conduct their evaluations simultaneously in one session, arguing this was mandated by A.R.S. § 36-3703(A), but the trial court denied the motion and a motion for reconsideration. The appellate court accepted special action jurisdiction but denied relief, holding that the statute does not require simultaneous evaluations and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing separate examinations. The court reasoned that the statute's language is permissive rather than mandatory, that all three experts opposed simultaneous evaluations due to concerns about reliability and standard methodology, and that evaluations need only occur in close temporal proximity to ensure professionally sound assessments.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dependency proceeding for Michael J., Jr., an infant born exposed to cocaine to a non-Indian mother and an enrolled member of the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation father. After the Arizona Department of Economic Security took custody and the juvenile court found the child dependent, the father moved to transfer jurisdiction to the Nation’s tribal court under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The child’s guardian ad litem appealed, arguing that ICWA did not apply, that an “existing Indian family” exception should prevent its application, and that transfer was an abuse of discretion. The court held that ICWA applied because the child was eligible for tribal membership as the biological child of a tribal member, rejected the proposed exception as inconsistent with the statute and Supreme Court precedent, and found no good cause to deny transfer. It therefore affirmed the order transferring the case to tribal court.

family lawfederal power

The case involved defendant Lawrence Cotton, who accidentally shot his pregnant girlfriend, resulting in her death and the subsequent death of their newborn infant the following day from injuries sustained in utero. Cotton was charged with two counts of reckless second-degree murder but convicted by a jury of two lesser-included counts of reckless manslaughter under Arizona statutes. On appeal, he argued that the homicide laws did not apply because the fatal injury occurred to a fetus, not a "person." The court affirmed the convictions, holding that a newborn who is born alive and later dies from prenatal injuries qualifies as a "person" under the manslaughter and murder statutes. This conclusion rested on the common-law "born alive" doctrine, which Arizona's criminal code incorporates, distinguishing the case from prior rulings involving fetuses that died before birth.

criminal law

The case concerned Arizona resident shareholders of an S corporation who sought tax credits on their individual Arizona returns for their pro rata shares of corporate income taxes that the corporation had paid to Hawaii on installment-sale gains from Hawaiian real property. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Arizona Department of Revenue, denying the credits. It held that A.R.S. § 43-1071(A) authorizes credits only for net income taxes paid by the same taxpayer on income taxable under Arizona’s personal-income-tax chapter (Chapter 10), whereas the Hawaii payments were corporate taxes paid by the corporation itself. The court rejected arguments based on statutory text, legislative intent, and public policy against double taxation, noting that the corporation had elected not to be treated as an S corporation in Hawaii.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge to the validity of Ralph Shumway's will by his daughter Virginia Gavette, who claimed her father was incompetent and that his bookkeeper Adelida Rodriguez exerted undue influence, and also argued that Rodriguez engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing the will. The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the will's validity and enforcing its penalty clause against Gavette and her sister. The court reasoned that Rodriguez merely acted as a scribe without providing legal advice, that sufficient evidence showed Shumway was competent and not unduly influenced, and that the challengers lacked probable cause to contest the will, justifying enforcement of the penalty clause.

family law

This case involved the administration of John Fogleman's estate, which included a will directing payment of taxes from the residuary estate and a $1.5 million life insurance policy with multiple beneficiaries; after the estate proved insolvent, personal representative Richard Sheffield (a Snell & Wilmer partner) and his attorneys sought to apportion taxes among insurance beneficiaries despite the will's tax-shifting provision. The trial court found that Sheffield and Snell & Wilmer had an undisclosed conflict of interest because the firm represented several estate creditors, breached fiduciary duties under A.R.S. § 14-3703(A), violated Ethical Rules 1.7 and 2.2, and acted in bad faith by prioritizing creditor clients over beneficiaries, leading to Sheffield's removal, the firm's disqualification, and reduced fees. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed in part the findings of ethical violations and bad faith stemming from the conflict, but reversed in part on other issues and remanded for further proceedings on fees and related matters, while clarifying that informed consent can sometimes allow multiple representations in uncontested probate distributions.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Valle, the defendant appealed his convictions for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, arguing that the evidence was obtained through an unlawful pat-down search during a traffic stop. The court reversed the convictions, holding that the officer exceeded the scope of a permissible Terry pat-down by removing rolling papers from the defendant's pocket and directing him to remove his shoes to seize marijuana, as there was no evidence the items were weapons or immediately identifiable as contraband. The decision rested on the Fourth Amendment limits established in Terry v. Ohio, which restrict such searches to those necessary for officer safety without broader exploration for evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Arizona residents who were injured in a car accident in Arizona after allegedly being over-served alcohol at a Nevada casino owned by Lakeview Company; they sued the casino in Arizona for damages under dram shop liability theories. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the casino had sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona through its targeted advertising in Arizona newspapers and to Arizona tour operators, substantial Arizona customer traffic, and employment of Arizona residents, making the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with due process. The court further reasoned that Arizona's interests in highway safety and compensating its residents outweighed Nevada's interest in protecting its businesses from liability.

proceduretorts & liability

This products liability case arose when plaintiff Patrick Anderson lost his arm in a bottle-making machine manufactured by defendant Nissei after the machine's purge guards had been removed by his employer to facilitate routine maintenance. A jury found Nissei 21% at fault and awarded Anderson $3.25 million in damages, but the trial court granted Nissei's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, reinstated the verdict, and denied Nissei's request for a new trial. The court reasoned that evidence of the machine's design—specifically the easily removable guards attached only by screws and the absence of instructions for removing hardened drool—supported the jury's finding that the product was defective when it left Nissei's control and that the removal of the guards was foreseeable.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved whether Great Western Publishing's "The Valley Classifieds," a free weekly publication consisting almost entirely of classified and paid display advertising with no news articles or editorials, qualified as a "newspaper" eligible for a deduction from Arizona's job printing transaction privilege tax under A.R.S. section 42-1310.06(B)(1)(b). The court held that it did not qualify as a newspaper, applying dictionary definitions that require content such as news and editorials, which the publication lacked, and therefore affirmed the denial of the tax refund. The court also rejected the argument that the tax application violated the First Amendment, concluding that the statute was content-neutral and did not discriminate based on particular ideas or viewpoints. It affirmed the tax court's grant of summary judgment to the Arizona Department of Revenue.

taxesfree speech

The case involved a dispute over the Industrial Commission of Arizona's approval of a lump-sum commutation of workers' compensation benefits for an employee injured while working for an uninsured employer, the Kessens. The Kessens argued that their consent was required for the commutation under the relevant statute, but the court determined that the statute's consent requirement applies only to insurance carriers, not uninsured employers. On the employee's cross-petition regarding deductions from the lump-sum award, the court held that the issue had not been properly preserved for review. The court affirmed the ICA's decision approving the commutation.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Johnny David Quintana's appeal from his conviction for misdemeanor criminal trespass and the subsequent extension of his probation term. After initial felony charges including burglary were dismissed or reduced, the case proceeded to a bench trial on the misdemeanor trespass and assault counts following the state's amendment of the complaint; the court acquitted on assault but convicted on trespass, imposing six months of probation that was later extended to two years upon a violation finding. Quintana argued he was denied his right to a jury trial due to the charge reduction and that the court lacked authority to extend probation beyond its initial term. The court affirmed the conviction and probation extension, holding that the proper designation of the offense as a class one misdemeanor eliminated any jury trial right and that Arizona law permitted extending probation up to the statutory maximum of three years for such an offense upon a violation. The decision distinguished prior precedent on charge reductions and relied on statutes governing misdemeanor penalties and probation authority.

criminal lawprocedure