Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
Repeatedly cites and applies long-standing precedent such as Barassi v. Matison to resolve jurisdictional issues without questioning its validity [0]. Craig v. Craig ↗
PurposivismTextualism
Resolves probation termination and lesser-included-offense questions by close parsing of A.R.S. text rather than broad purpose [3][9]. State v. Lewis ↗ State v. Gipson ↗
In State v. Gipson, Gary Wayne Gipson was charged with first-degree murder and related offenses after fatally shooting Billy Joe Huff during a dispute over a business venture. At trial, the judge gave the jury instructions on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter over objections from both the defense and prosecution; the jury acquitted Gipson of first-degree murder but convicted him of manslaughter. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that a trial judge may instruct on a lesser-included offense supported by the evidence even when both parties object. The court reasoned that, unlike in capital cases under Beck v. Alabama, defendants in non-capital cases have no absolute right to an “all-or-nothing” defense strategy, and no Arizona statute, rule, or constitutional provision prohibits the instruction when the evidence warrants it. The decision emphasized that convictions resulting from such properly supported instructions do not require reversal.
The case involved the Arizona Attorney General suing AutoZone under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) for alleged violations of state pricing display rules between 2001 and 2006, seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement of profits. The superior court found factual disputes and denied summary judgment on liability and remedies, while the court of appeals addressed multiple issues including the CFA's application and awarded fees to the State. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated portions of the appeals court ruling, holding that the CFA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices does not impose strict liability for pricing violations (instead implicating the omission clause requiring intent to mislead) and that disgorgement under A.R.S. § 44-1528(A)(1) is not available in the manner sought; it also vacated the fee award because the State had not yet prevailed. The Court remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with its interpretations of the CFA.
In State v. VanWinkle, the defendant was convicted of attempted murder and related offenses after remaining silent when a civilian witness identified him as the shooter to arriving police officers; the prosecution introduced evidence of that post-custody, pre-Miranda silence and argued it as a tacit admission of guilt. The Arizona Supreme Court assumed the defendant was in custody at the time but held that Miranda did not apply because the statement came from a civilian, not police interrogation. The court then addressed the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination directly, noting that Supreme Court precedent had left the issue open and that using such silence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief would compel the defendant to be a witness against himself. It therefore concluded that admission of the evidence and prosecutorial comment on it violated the Fifth Amendment.
In State v. Cota, Benjamin Bernal Cota was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed robbery, narcotics possession, and unlawful flight after killing his employers, Victor Martinez and Guadalupe Zavala, in their Peoria home in late 2003, hiding their bodies, and using their property and accounts before fleeing police. The trial court imposed a death sentence for Zavala’s murder, natural life for Martinez’s, and various prison terms. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence supported the verdicts and that the jury properly found aggravating factors including prior serious offenses, commission while on release, and the victim’s age. It remanded only for resentencing on the non-capital counts due to an error in imposing consecutive terms. The court rejected multiple claims of trial and sentencing error, including challenges to joinder, flight evidence, and constitutional arguments regarding the death penalty procedures.
In Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc., a wheelchair-using passenger on a Tucson city bus was injured when the driver braked sharply after another vehicle stopped ahead, throwing her from her seat; she sued the bus operator and driver for negligence in both the driving and the failure to secure her seatbelt. The trial court instructed the jury that common carriers must exercise “the highest degree of care practicable under the circumstances,” and the jury awarded damages after allocating fault. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ affirmance and remanded for a new trial, holding that common carriers owe passengers only the ordinary duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances. The court reasoned that the heightened standard originated in outdated English common-law rules for carriers of goods and has been superseded by Arizona’s general negligence framework, which already accounts for the specific facts of each case, including the relationship between the parties.
In this divorce case, Wife filed a notice of appeal from the dissolution decree while Husband's timely post-judgment motion for new trial or to amend the decree remained pending in the superior court; Husband then cross-appealed, and after the motion was denied neither party filed a new notice. The court of appeals dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction under the rule from Barassi v. Matison that a premature notice filed while a time-extending motion is pending does not confer appellate jurisdiction. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Barassi rule applies regardless of which party filed the notice of appeal, that ARCAP 9(b) does not create an exception in this situation, and that any change to the longstanding procedure must come through rulemaking rather than judicial decision. The Court noted that the parties could seek stipulated relief in the trial court to allow fresh notices of appeal.