Peter Eckerstrom

The case involved James Johnson, who was convicted after a bench trial of second-degree murder of his former wife and initially sentenced to an aggravated twenty-two-year prison term. After remand for a jury determination of aggravating factors, the jury found that the murder was committed in an especially cruel, heinous, or depraved manner along with other aggravators, leading the trial court to reimpose the aggravated sentence. Johnson appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the cruel/heinous/depraved finding and the exclusion of expert testimony on his mental state. The appellate court concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support the aggravating factors but determined that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding relevant expert evidence that could rebut the state's proof of Johnson's mental state. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and the jury's findings on the especially cruel, heinous, or depraved circumstance and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

Gary Hackworth, a warehouseman whose job involved prolonged standing and heavy lifting, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that his Morton's neuroma foot injury was caused or aggravated by his employment. An administrative law judge denied the claim after finding a conflict in medical testimony and accepting the independent examiner's view that the condition could have idiopathic causes and could not be stated to a medical probability as work-related, even though the treating physician opined it was more than 50 percent likely due to the job and medical literature linked such neuromas to repetitive trauma. The court set aside the award, concluding that the examiner's testimony about possible unknown causes, without specific facts or evidence ruling out employment as a cause, did not create a sufficient dispute to deny compensability.

labor & employment

This case involved the state's appeal of a trial court's dismissal of an indictment against Jaime Espinoza for failing to register as a sex offender. The dismissal stemmed from a 2004 superior court order imposing registration as a probation condition for an adult criminal damage conviction, which was based on an erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a prior juvenile duty to register from a 1997 delinquency adjudication for attempted child molestation. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the 2004 order was void because the superior court lacked jurisdiction to impose registration requirements tied to a juvenile matter that the juvenile court had explicitly declined to order, and the adult offense did not independently authorize such a condition. The core reasoning centered on statutory limits on court jurisdiction over juvenile delinquency subject matter and the principle that a void order cannot create an enforceable registration duty.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Yonkman, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of sexual abuse and sexual conduct with a minor based on acts against his stepdaughter, with the state also introducing other-act evidence from two additional alleged victims. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and sentences and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress Yonkman's confession. The court reasoned that after Yonkman invoked his right to counsel during an initial police encounter, the detective's subsequent contact through the victim's mother to arrange a polygraph and interview constituted police-initiated interrogation in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, rendering the later Miranda waiver invalid. The opinion also addressed but did not resolve several other evidentiary issues that could arise on remand.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Nuckols, the state appealed the trial court's denial of its request for restitution to Pima County after the defendant was convicted of multiple felonies stemming from fleeing and shooting at a deputy sheriff. Pursuant to a plea agreement capping restitution at $10,000, the trial court had ordered that restitution issues remain open for 30 days after sentencing, but the state filed its claim form over two months late seeking $540.56 for vehicle repairs. The trial court denied the request as untimely after a hearing, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that while victims have constitutional and statutory rights to restitution, trial courts may set reasonable deadlines for asserting those claims, and missing such a deadline waives the right absent any excuse or authority to disregard the deadline.

criminal lawprocedure

In this probate action concerning the estate and trust of Frances B. Lewis, appellant Simon Lewis objected to informal probate of the will and filed a complaint against the personal representative, Mark Lewis. The trial court sanctioned Simon by dismissing his complaint, entering default judgment, and overruling his objection, based on his failure to personally appear at a pretrial conference and his attorney's failure to file a timely reply to counterclaims. The Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions and remanded, reasoning that the personal appearance order was not clearly communicated to the represented party, the record did not support a finding of willful noncompliance, and sanctions could not be imposed for attorney negligence without a proper evidentiary hearing under Rule 16(f).

procedureproperty