Robert M. Brutinel

This case involved Brad Lee Nelson, who was convicted by a jury of the first-degree premeditated murder of his fourteen-year-old niece while he was caring for her in a motel. The jury also found the aggravating factor that the victim was under fifteen years old and determined that Nelson should receive the death penalty. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting numerous claims regarding the trial proceedings, jury instructions, and the constitutionality of Arizona's death penalty scheme. The court's reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the evidence for premeditation, the proper application of aggravating and mitigating factors, and precedent upholding the state's capital punishment procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from a car accident lawsuit in which the plaintiffs prevailed in mandatory arbitration, after which the defendant appealed to superior court for a trial de novo and later attempted to supplement her witness list with a biomechanical expert. The superior court struck the supplemental disclosure for lack of good cause, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that parties could supplement disclosures under the general discovery rules during the 80-day post-appeal period without showing good cause. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated that decision, ruling that Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 77(g)(1) requires witness and exhibit lists to be filed simultaneously with the arbitration appeal and that subsection (g)(4) permits supplementation only upon a showing of good cause and court approval; the specific provisions of Rule 77 control over the more general discovery rules in Rules 26-37 to promote timely trials de novo.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a professional negligence and breach of implied warranty lawsuit filed by American Asphalt against CMX that was dismissed without further notice after the plaintiff failed to file a Motion to Set and Certificate of Readiness under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 38.1. The Arizona Supreme Court held that a superior court's earlier 150-Day Order did not satisfy Rule 38.1(e)'s requirement to promptly notify counsel in writing of the placement of cases on the Inactive Calendar. The court reasoned that the rule's text and context require contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous notice when a case is actually placed on the Inactive Calendar, rather than advance notice of a future placement, and therefore remanded for the superior court to reconsider the plaintiff's Rule 60(c) motion to set aside the dismissal in light of the noncompliant notice.

procedure

This case involved a professional negligence and breach of warranty lawsuit filed by American Asphalt against CMX that was dismissed without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to file a timely Motion to Set and Certificate of Readiness under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 38.1. The superior court had issued a 150-Day Order months earlier warning that the case would be placed on the Inactive Calendar and dismissed if the motion was not filed, but no further notice was given when the case was actually placed on the Inactive Calendar or before dismissal. The Arizona Supreme Court held that Rule 38.1(e) requires the court to promptly notify counsel in writing when a case is placed on the Inactive Calendar, so an earlier advance notice did not comply with the rule. The court vacated the court of appeals decision and remanded to the superior court to reconsider the plaintiff's Rule 60(c) motion to set aside the dismissal, treating the lack of compliant notice as one relevant factor among others.

procedure

The case involved Michael Hummons, who was convicted of possessing a narcotic drug and drug paraphernalia after police found the items in a search of his backpack incident to arrest on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Hummons' motion to suppress the evidence, holding that even if the initial encounter amounted to an illegal detention during the warrant check, the arrest on the valid warrant sufficiently attenuated the search from any prior illegality. The court reasoned that the officer's conduct was not flagrant or purposeful misconduct, as she had approached Hummons due to suspicious circumstances involving possible thefts and had initially planned to release him without arrest until he became belligerent.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, police responded to an aggravated assault report, located the suspect Fisher at his apartment, detained him and two others outside after they exited cooperatively and unarmed, and then conducted a protective sweep of the apartment without consent or a warrant, discovering marijuana inside. Fisher was charged with marijuana possession, moved to suppress the evidence from the sweep, and the trial court denied the motion, leading to his conviction; the court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the lower court decisions and remanded, holding that the protective sweep violated the Fourth Amendment because officers lacked specific, articulable facts showing a reasonable belief that an armed individual remained inside posing a danger, relying instead on speculation about the unaccounted-for gun. The court emphasized that protective sweeps require particularized facts rather than general risks or conjecture to justify entering a residence.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a dispute over a tax lien on property owned by Michael Hodges, which Leveraged Land Co. had purchased and then sought to foreclose through litigation starting in 2005. After Hodges redeemed the lien following appellate rulings that allowed him to do so, Leveraged Land challenged the redemption and sought costs and attorney fees under A.R.S. § 42-18206. The Arizona Supreme Court held that a tax lien purchaser is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs only for work performed before the redemption and issuance of the certificate of redemption, not for subsequent litigation. The court reasoned that the statute ties the fee entitlement to the redemption event itself and does not support shifting costs for post-redemption challenges, remanding the case for the trial court to determine the reasonable pre-redemption amount. The opinion vacated the court of appeals' decision.

propertytaxesprocedure