Andrew David Hurwitz

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

torts & liability

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.

family lawprocedure

In this case, Clarence Wayne Dixon was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1978 strangling and stabbing of Deana Bowdoin after DNA evidence from the crime scene matched his profile in 2001, and he was sentenced to death after the jury found aggravating factors including a prior serious conviction and that the murder was especially cruel and heinous. Dixon, who represented himself at trial, appealed his conviction and death sentence, raising claims including prosecutorial misconduct in admitting evidence of a prior sexual assault under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(c), as well as multiple challenges to the constitutionality of Arizona's death penalty scheme and trial procedures. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the jury's determinations and rejecting the constitutional claims based on established precedents. The court held that the evidence supported the verdicts and that Dixon had not shown any misconduct or instructional errors that affected the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Donald David Delahanty, who was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting a Phoenix police officer during a traffic stop, along with related charges of attempted arson, conspiracy, and solicitation. The trial court sentenced him to death after finding aggravating factors, including the victim's status as a peace officer killed in the line of duty, and Delahanty waived presentation of mitigation evidence after a competency evaluation. On appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, Delahanty raised numerous claims, including errors in competency prescreening, application of aggravating factors, and various constitutional challenges to the death penalty statute. The court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, holding that any errors did not prejudice the defendant and rejecting the constitutional arguments based on prior precedents.

criminal law

This case concerned the murder of sixteen-year-old Rebecca R. in her driveway, for which defendant Louie Thomas Machado was convicted of second-degree murder after the trial court excluded much of his third-party culpability evidence pointing to classmate Jonathan H. as the perpetrator. The excluded evidence included details of Jonathan's prior violent acts with guns and an anonymous telephone call in which a young male caller confessed to accidentally shooting Rebecca and provided non-public details. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded, holding that the evidence of Jonathan's other acts was admissible to support the defense and that the call qualified as a declaration against penal interest under Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) while also satisfying relevance under Rule 401 and not being substantially outweighed by prejudice under Rule 403.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Arizona limited liability companies suing California defendants over an investment in a California mining project, raising the issue of whether Arizona courts had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state parties. The Arizona Supreme Court held that jurisdiction was proper over the limited partnership and two individuals who actively solicited the Arizona plaintiffs through calls, emails, and other communications directed to the state, but not over the project manager and his company who had no such directed contacts. The court's reasoning focused on the Due Process Clause requirements of purposeful availment and minimum contacts with the forum state, as established by U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Burger King and Hanson.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Lewis, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court may terminate a defendant's probation early under A.R.S. § 13-901(E) when the defendant has not completed all required community service or paid all outstanding fines and fees. Troy Jason Lewis, who pleaded guilty to possession of a dangerous drug for sale, was placed on five years of probation with conditions including monthly community service and payment of $5400 in fines; after violations and subsequent rehabilitation efforts, his probation officer recommended termination despite incomplete conditions. The superior court terminated probation unsuccessfully, entered a civil judgment for remaining amounts, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute grants trial courts broad discretion to terminate probation if the ends of justice are served and the defendant's conduct warrants it, without mandating full compliance with all conditions beforehand, and that outstanding obligations can be addressed through a civil judgment under A.R.S. § 13-805.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Joseph Wesley Gomez, who was charged with crimes related to a home invasion in Arizona. Police collected evidence from the scene and submitted it, along with a blood sample from Gomez, for DNA analysis using a multi-step laboratory process. The prosecution called a single senior analyst to testify about the resulting DNA profiles, which matched Gomez, even though other technicians who performed earlier steps did not testify. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the analyst's testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court reasoned that the analyst had performed the final interpretive step herself, verified compliance with lab protocols, and established the chain of custody, making her testimony about the profiles admissible without the other technicians appearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether an order in an unsupervised probate administration requiring nonprobate transferees to contribute a pro rata share of estate taxes was immediately appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(J). The superior court had issued such an order disposing of a petition for instructions filed by the personal representative, and a nonprobate beneficiary appealed. The court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, relying on precedent from a supervised administration case. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the order was appealable because, unlike in supervised administrations that remain under court supervision until a final decree, formal proceedings in unsupervised administrations can be finally resolved independently, and delaying review until a possible later distribution order would undermine the unsupervised process and create uncertainty. The Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

proceduretaxesproperty

The case involved a 2002 federal judgment from California that was registered in Arizona, with the judgment creditors later pursuing collection efforts in Arizona (such as writs of garnishment and debtor examinations) and filing a related racketeering suit in California. The Arizona Supreme Court addressed two certified questions from the Ninth Circuit on whether those actions renewed the judgment under Arizona law. The court held that neither the in-state collection activities nor the out-of-state lawsuit renewed the judgment. It reasoned that collection efforts enforce an existing judgment rather than create a new one through a common-law action on the judgment, and the California suit sought distinct remedies under racketeering and fraud laws rather than simply seeking a new judgment on the debt owed.

procedure

This case concerned whether an evaluating physician could testify by telephone, over the patient's objection, in a superior court hearing on a petition for involuntary mental health treatment under Arizona statutes. The superior court allowed the telephonic testimony, found the patient had a mental disorder and was persistently or acutely disabled, and ordered up to 180 days of inpatient treatment. The court of appeals vacated the order, holding that the patient's procedural due process rights were violated absent a showing of true necessity for the doctor's unavailability. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court, reasoning that the significant liberty interest at stake was adequately protected because the doctor was subject to full cross-examination, his report had been disclosed in advance, his testimony largely duplicated that of the other evaluating physician who appeared in person, and the patient had declined a continuance that would have delayed the statutorily required hearing.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved the R.M. Grand Revocable Living Trust suing Qwest Communications, its executives Joseph Nacchio and John McMaster, and related entities over purchases of KPNQ joint venture stock, alleging that overstated earnings violated Arizona securities laws and seeking rescission of the transactions. The superior court dismissed claims regarding aftermarket purchases, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of those claims. The court reasoned that under A.R.S. § 44-2003(A), the defendants did not participate in the aftermarket sales as the Trust had abandoned any inducement theory in its third amended complaint, and allowing further amendment after years of litigation would not serve the interests of justice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved challenges to the nomination petitions of two Republican candidates for office in Arizona, John Huppenthal and Bob Thomas. The plaintiffs argued that signatures collected before the candidates formed required campaign committees under state law should be invalidated, preventing the candidates from appearing on the primary ballot. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's ruling that the candidates had violated A.R.S. § 16-903(A) by collecting signatures after forming exploratory committees but before campaign committees, but held that the appropriate remedy was a civil penalty rather than striking the signatures. The court reasoned that the statute does not mandate disqualification of petitions as a consequence of the violation and that other laws, such as the "resign to run" provision, remain enforceable separately.

elections

The case involved Joshua Villalobos, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and child abuse after evidence showed he had repeatedly struck five-year-old Ashley Molina, causing fatal blunt-force abdominal trauma. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence on automatic appeal. The court upheld the jury's findings of three aggravating circumstances—the murder was committed in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner, Villalobos was on release from prison, and the victim was under fifteen—and rejected multiple constitutional challenges to Arizona's capital-sentencing scheme.

criminal law

In State v. Lynch, Shawn Patrick Lynch was convicted of armed robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and first-degree murder after evidence showed he and an accomplice robbed, bound, and killed James Panzarella in his Scottsdale guesthouse, then used the victim's credit cards and other property. The trial court imposed a death sentence for the murder along with lengthy prison terms for the other offenses. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and non-capital sentences, holding that the jury properly found the (F)(5) pecuniary gain and (F)(6) especially cruel, heinous, or depraved aggravating circumstances. However, the court remanded for a new penalty-phase trial because the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury to treat the case as involving four aggravators and the prosecutor highlighted that instruction, creating reversible error that did not permit independent reweighing under A.R.S. § 13-755(B).

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Tracie Geeslin was convicted of theft of a means of transportation and other offenses after the trial court denied her request for a jury instruction on the lesser offense of unlawful use of a means of transportation. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions but declined to review the jury instruction claim because the proposed instruction was missing from the appellate record, presuming the omission supported the trial court's ruling. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the court of appeals should have addressed the claim on its merits. The core reasoning was that the trial judge's denial rested on whether the requested offense was necessarily included as a matter of statutory elements, an issue of law that did not require the exact text of the missing instruction, and that the existing record was sufficient to evaluate whether the evidence supported giving the instruction.

criminal lawprocedure