Robert J. Corcoran

In State v. Gibson, the defendant was convicted of a 1974 first-degree murder based on fingerprint evidence and testimony from his ex-wife, after the trial court precluded him from introducing evidence suggesting that two other individuals (D.B. and J.W.) might have committed the crime. The trial court had excluded this third-party culpability evidence on grounds that it lacked an inherent connection to the murder and could confuse the jury, and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that admissibility of such evidence must be determined under the standard rules of relevance and prejudice (Arizona Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403) rather than any heightened or special test like a 'clear link' requirement. The court remanded the case for a new trial with instructions to apply the proper evidentiary balancing test to the proffered evidence about the alternative suspects.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Blackmore, the defendant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs after Phoenix police detained him while investigating a nearby burglary, handcuffed him for safety, obtained his consent to retrieve identification from his car, and discovered methamphetamine in plain view during that process. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and statements, ruling the initial stop and detention were appropriate and the consent voluntary. The court of appeals reversed in a divided opinion, holding that the detention amounted to an unlawful de facto arrest without probable cause. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion, concluding that the seizure was a valid investigatory stop supported by specific facts and that the consent was not tainted.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involves David O'Neal Hyde's appeal from convictions on two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of first-degree burglary, stemming from the 1991 killings of a father and daughter at a Phoenix market, along with consecutive death sentences for the murders. The Arizona Supreme Court conducted an automatic review and affirmed the convictions and sentences in full. The court examined numerous claims, including issues with trial counsel's preparation and representation, the voluntariness of the defendant's statements, search procedures, and jury instructions on sentencing, concluding that the trial court committed no reversible error on any point.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jones, Danny Lee Jones was convicted in Mohave County Superior Court of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of attempted premeditated first-degree murder after attacking Robert Weaver, his wife Jackie, and their seven-year-old daughter Tisha in their home, resulting in the deaths of Robert and Tisha and serious injury to Katherine Gumina. The trial court imposed two consecutive death sentences for the murders and a consecutive life sentence for the attempted murder. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court independently reviewed the entire record, identified multiple aggravating circumstances for each murder—including pecuniary gain, cruelty or depravity, multiple homicides, and the young age of one victim—while giving limited weight to mitigating factors such as substance abuse and head injuries, and concluded that the mitigators were insufficient to call for leniency. The court found no fundamental error and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal law

This case involved two British Virgin Islands corporations, Gemstar and Canstar, along with several of their shareholders, who sued the accounting firm Ernst & Young and an individual accountant for breach of contract, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims arising from advice and services connected to the purchase, tax treatment, and resale of Arizona real properties. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs after a jury verdict, but the court of appeals reversed on multiple grounds related to the plaintiffs' capacity to sue. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision, holding that Gemstar and Canstar had capacity to sue because the action was properly authorized at filing and within the statute of limitations, and it affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the corporations without addressing the individual shareholders' capacity due to duplicative damages.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves the direct appeal of a death sentence imposed on Michael Steven Gallegos after his convictions for first-degree murder and sexual conduct with a minor under age 15. Following a prior remand for resentencing, the trial court again found two aggravating circumstances under Arizona's death penalty statute—the victim's age and the especially heinous, cruel, and depraved nature of the murder—along with several statutory and non-statutory mitigating factors such as the defendant's age and immaturity, remorse, and history of substance abuse. The trial court determined that the mitigation was not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency and resentenced Gallegos to death. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court independently reviewed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, affirmed the trial court's findings on those factors, and concluded that the mitigation did not call for a lesser sentence, thereby upholding the death penalty.

criminal law

In this case, plaintiffs David and Barbara Stallings sued defendant Spring Meadows Apartment Complex for personal injuries David sustained in a 1989 fall on the property's stairs. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in superior court in 1991, shortly after Spring Meadows entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which imposed an automatic stay under federal law. The bankruptcy court later lifted the stay to allow plaintiffs to proceed with their claims and collect any judgment from the defendant's insurance, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Spring Meadows on the ground that the original complaint was void as filed in violation of the stay. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lift-stay order granted retroactive relief from the stay, rendering the original complaint valid and eliminating any need to refile within the 30-day federal extension of the state statute of limitations. The court based its decision on the plain meaning of the bankruptcy court's order and a subsequent clarification order confirming retroactive effect.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Anthony Marshall Spears, who was convicted in Arizona superior court of theft and premeditated first-degree murder of a woman named Jeanette, receiving a death sentence for the murder. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, which included the victim's truck and possessions found with the defendant, a shell casing from his gun at the crime scene, and financial transactions prior to her disappearance. The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of premeditation and pecuniary motive, and upheld the death sentence after weighing the aggravating factor of committing the murder for pecuniary gain against mitigating factors such as lack of prior criminal record and military service, determining the mitigators were not substantial enough to warrant leniency.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a minor child, Christopher Broadbent, who suffered severe brain damage after nearly drowning in the family pool while his mother, Laura Broadbent, was briefly answering a phone call and not supervising him; the child, through his conservator, sued the mother for negligence, and the mother admitted fault but sought summary judgment based on the parental immunity doctrine. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the doctrine of parental immunity does not bar the child's negligence claim against his parent. The court abrogated the parental immunity doctrine in its entirety and replaced it with a "reasonable and prudent parent" standard drawn from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, under which liability turns on whether the parent's conduct would be considered negligent when measured against the care a reasonable parent would exercise, taking into account the nature of the activity and any parental discretion involved. This approach distinguishes between a parent's exercise of broad discretionary authority in child-rearing decisions and ordinary duties of care owed in supervision or other contexts, allowing the claim to proceed under the new test.

family lawtorts & liability

The case involved David Gulbrandson, convicted after trial of premeditated first-degree murder and theft in the killing of his former romantic partner and business associate Irene, whose body showed dozens of stab, blunt-force, and other injuries. Gulbrandson received a death sentence on the murder count and a consecutive five-year term on the theft count. On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed both convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence supported premeditation and that the trial proceedings and sentencing complied with applicable law.

criminal law

This case involved the joint trial of David Wayne Grannis and Daniel Ethan Webster for the 1989 murder of Richard in Arizona, along with related theft and trafficking charges. The jury convicted both defendants of premeditated first degree murder, two counts of theft, and trafficking in stolen property, leading to death sentences. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed the convictions and sentences, remanding for retrial, because the trial court erred by admitting deposition testimony in violation of Webster's right to be present under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.3(d).

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Lamberton, a victim of child molestation sought to file a separate petition for review after the trial court granted the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and reduced his sentence, challenging the court of appeals' dismissal of her petition on standing grounds. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the court of appeals did not err in dismissing the victim's petition, affirming that victims are not "aggrieved parties" entitled to file their own petitions for review under Rule 32.9. The court reasoned that the Victims' Bill of Rights and implementing statutes guarantee victims the right to be heard at trial-level proceedings, which the victim had exercised through testimony and statements, but do not confer party status or the right to initiate separate appellate review. It further noted that the prosecutor, as the aggrieved party, could adequately represent the victim's interests on appeal, and the constitutional right to be heard was satisfied through the trial record.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Greene, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether a single serious physical injury inflicted by the defendant during a series of crimes—aggravated assault, kidnapping, and two sexual assaults—could enhance all four sentences under A.R.S. § 13-604.02(A) as dangerous offenses committed while on probation. The defendant was convicted after attacking a victim, causing her severe facial injuries during the initial assault and then committing the sexual assaults. The court held that the injury enhanced the sentences for aggravated assault and kidnapping but not the sexual assaults, reasoning that the statutory requirement that the offense "involve" the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury was not met for the sexual assaults because the injury occurred prior to and separately from those acts. The majority interpreted "involving" narrowly in relation to the timing and elements of each offense, rejecting the argument that the overall violent episode connected the injury to all counts.

criminal law

The case involved Wilderness World, a company operating guided river rafting trips through the Grand Canyon, challenging an Arizona transaction privilege tax assessed by the Department of Revenue under a statute taxing businesses charging admission fees for amusement. The tax court upheld the assessment based on prior precedent, but the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals in ruling that the tax was improperly imposed. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute applies only to businesses charging admission fees, whereas Wilderness World charged a single fee for a package of services including guides, food, and equipment without exclusive control over the river or charging for park entry. The court also reversed the denial of attorneys' fees, awarding them to Wilderness World on appeal. It disapproved of an earlier appellate decision applying the tax to similar river trips.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute over the custody and adoption of a minor child born in Arizona to an unmarried mother who initially consented to adoption by a Florida couple, opposed by the biological father who sought to establish paternity and regain custody. The Arizona trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction, quashing a writ of habeas corpus and warrant for the child's return, and deferred to the Florida court handling the adoption proceedings. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) governed the placement and that Arizona lacked personal jurisdiction over the adoptive parents, while the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was inapplicable.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned Robert Wayne Vickers' conviction for the premeditated first-degree murder of his cellmate in an Arizona state prison, for which he received a death sentence. Vickers appealed his conviction and sought post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and errors related to the destruction of physical evidence. The Arizona Supreme Court determined that his trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting evidence that could have supported a second-degree murder verdict and instead offering evidence that prevented the jury from considering it, prejudicing the defense. As a result, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, without addressing the evidence destruction claim.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Eric John King, who was convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder for fatally shooting a convenience store clerk and security guard during a robbery captured on video. The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the automatic appeal of the death sentences, addressing issues including the admissibility of witness statements under hearsay rules, confrontation clause challenges, and the sufficiency of mitigating factors related to the defendant's mental health and background. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or its weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances under Arizona law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Tucson City Council could remove a sitting city magistrate from office for judicial misconduct under authority granted by the city charter, following the 1988 amendment to article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution that extended the Commission on Judicial Conduct's jurisdiction to include city magistrates. The trial court ruled for the magistrate, finding that the amendment had divested the council of removal power, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the council retained its charter authority to discharge the magistrate after a due process hearing. The court reasoned that the amendment broadened the Commission's oversight without repealing or conflicting with preexisting local removal provisions in home-rule charters, and that the actions did not violate separation of powers. The case was remanded with instructions to uphold the council's removal decision.

procedure

In Lee v. Hodge, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court properly excluded evidence of an auto body shop owner's prior practices of intentionally inflating repair costs, such as damaging vehicles or overcharging, in a lawsuit brought by customers under the Consumer Fraud Act seeking punitive damages. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant removed and damaged their car's engine without authorization to increase charges, while the defendant disputed the timing and necessity of the work. The court held that the evidence was admissible to prove the defendant's intent, knowledge, and state of mind relevant to punitive damages, as it involved similar business practices rather than being offered to show character, and reversed the lower courts' rulings excluding it before remanding for a new trial. The decision emphasized that prior acts need not be identical if they are relevant and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice under the rules of evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case In re Jett concerned disciplinary proceedings against Tucson city magistrate Rita Jett for judicial misconduct. After her intoxicated live-in boyfriend was arrested on domestic violence and related charges, Jett went to the jail and signed an ex parte release order as a judge, allowing his release without bond before the scheduled arraignment. The Commission on Judicial Conduct found violations of Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B), and 3(E) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, along with prior similar incidents, and recommended public censure, a 60-day unpaid suspension, and mandatory counseling. The Arizona Supreme Court exercised its independent authority to review the record as the final decision-maker on judicial discipline, accepting the Commission's factual findings while noting the impact of the ex parte communication on court proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure