Ben C. Birdsall

In State v. Fimbres, the defendant was charged with possession and transportation of marijuana after police seized evidence and took statements from him. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress both the physical evidence and the statements, leading the state to dismiss the charges and then appeal. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the suppression of the physical evidence, holding that the defendant had failed to present any evidence establishing a prima facie case for suppression as required by Rule 16.2(b) and that argument alone was insufficient. It affirmed the suppression of the defendant's statements, however, because such statements are presumed involuntary and the state bears the burden of proving voluntariness once a timely motion is filed. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance or accept a late response from the prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a claim by accident victims against an insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith failure to settle, after the company refused to defend or pay on a policy held by the at-fault driver. The court affirmed judgment for the insurer, Aetna, finding that the automobile insurance policy had automatically lapsed on April 1, 1981, due to the insured's failure to pay the renewal premium by the extended deadline of May 1, 1981. The core reasoning was that notices sent to the lienholder bank regarding potential lapse did not extend coverage to the insured, the policy terms provided for automatic termination upon nonpayment, and the insurer had not accepted a late payment or otherwise induced reliance that would create estoppel.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned the Arizona State Liquor Board's revocation of a Class 6 liquor license held by The Fine Line establishment after a panel found 20 violations of state liquor laws, primarily involving service to and presence of underage patrons as well as allowing an intoxicated person on the premises. The superior court reversed nearly all of those findings, ruled the revocation penalty excessive, and remanded the matter. On the board's appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the panel's findings on multiple counts from the two complaints, affirmed the superior court's reversal on two other counts, rejected arguments that the administrative hearing violated due process or fairness standards, and remanded the case to the board for a new penalty determination consistent with the remaining violations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the distribution of proceeds from a term life insurance policy purchased with community funds during the marriage of Manuel and Sandra Alarcon. After Sandra shot Manuel and then herself, resulting in her death shortly before his, the personal representative of Manuel's estate sought a declaratory judgment that the full proceeds belonged to his estate under the policy terms, which directed payment to the owner or owner's estate if the beneficiary did not survive by ten days. The trial court agreed and denied the claim of Sandra's estate to any share. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the policy was community property in which Sandra held a one-half vested interest that passed to her estate, and that neither the policy terms nor the circumstances of the deaths forfeited that interest. The court therefore ordered one-half the proceeds distributed to Sandra's estate.

family lawproperty

In Perras v. Perras, a 1984 divorce decree, based on the parties' stipulation, awarded the wife 45% of the husband's military retirement pay, which included amounts he later elected to receive as tax-free VA disability benefits. When the Air Force paid the wife less than the decreed monthly amount due to federal deductions for disability pay, the trial court ordered the husband to pay the shortfall as arrearages. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the unappealed decree was final and res judicata, that the husband's waiver under federal law did not transform community property into his separate property, and that the in-court agreement was binding under state statute.

family lawproperty

This case involves post-dissolution enforcement of a 1982 Arizona divorce decree that divided community property and required the husband to pay the wife $480,000 in monthly installments of $2,000 without interest or termination on death or remarriage. After the husband fell behind on payments, claimed improper tax deductions, and transferred his assets to controlled corporations and a retirement trust to avoid collection, the trial court found fraudulent conveyances and alter-ego control, entered judgments for arrearages, and ordered payment directly from the husband's vested interest in an employee profit-sharing trust via a qualified domestic relations order under ERISA along with a lien on his trust interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the decree created a personal obligation enforceable against the trust assets and that the trial court's orders properly notified the plan administrators and protected the wife's rights under state and federal law.

family lawproperty

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for intentionally or knowingly abusing his two-month-old child, a class 4 felony under Arizona law, after he struck the baby in the face during an argument with the mother. The court decided to affirm the conviction, holding that the doctrine of transferred intent applied even though the intended act was an assault on the adult, which is a lesser offense. The core reasoning was that Arizona's transferred intent statute, A.R.S. § 13-203(B)(1), establishes the required mental state when the actual result differs only by injuring a different person, and evidence supported the jury's finding of intent despite conflicting testimony.

criminal law

The case involved a prisoner's challenge to the Arizona Department of Corrections' calculation of his multiple consecutive sentences, parole periods, and earned release credits following convictions for insufficient funds checks, escape, and a subsequent theft while on release. The trial court had ruled on various aspects of sentence computation, and the appellate court addressed issues including whether parole time could be held in abeyance on consecutive sentences, forfeiture of credits upon escape, and eligibility for early release credits on a flat-time sentence imposed under A.R.S. § 13-604.01. The court affirmed that the prisoner must serve the six-and-a-half-year flat time sentence without additional credits and that he was properly on mandatory release when committing the new offense, but reversed the computation of the parole tail start date in light of the supreme court's Cawley decision, remanding for recalculation of the maximum release date and consideration of monetary damages claims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved tenants under a lease agreement who claimed to have exercised an option to purchase the leased real property by tendering the full $90,000 purchase price, after which the owners refused and the tenants sued for specific performance. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the owners, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the option was too indefinite to be enforceable because a lease provision required the parties to negotiate and memorialize the remaining purchase terms by a set date, making it an agreement to agree on material elements. The court further reasoned that options must be strictly construed and exercised only in exact accordance with their terms, which here did not permit a full cash payment without prior negotiation of terms.

property

The case involved conflicting claims to two trust accounts at Arizona Bank, where Samuel Hutchison, the removed trustee of a California decedent's estate, demanded payment of the funds, while Wells Fargo Bank, appointed as successor trustee by a California court order, also demanded the balances. Arizona Bank filed an interpleader action to deposit the money with the court and avoid liability to either party. The trial court granted summary judgment for interpleader, ordered the funds paid into court, and abated the action pending the outcome of Hutchison's California appeal. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that A.R.S. § 6-233 and the depositor's agreement allowed the bank to interplead when faced with adverse claims rather than decide between them at its peril, and that the appeal lacked merit. The court also awarded attorney fees against Hutchison personally as a penalty for the frivolous appeal.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a plaintiff who filed a civil racketeering claim under Arizona statutes alleging that the defendants conspired to provide false testimony to a Pima County grand jury investigating campaign finance irregularities, resulting in his indictment on perjury charges that was later dismissed. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, citing witness immunity for statements in judicial proceedings. On appeal, the court treated the ruling as a summary judgment, held that absolute witness immunity does not preclude a racketeering action based on conspiracy to obstruct or hinder a criminal investigation or prosecution, found sufficient evidence of concerted action to survive summary judgment, rejected use and prosecutorial immunity as bars, and affirmed only the dismissal of the claim for damages to name and reputation because such injuries do not qualify for survival under the applicable statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

In Tennen v. Lane, the plaintiff sued her former attorney for legal malpractice, alleging he failed to explain or advise her about signing a property agreement and a consent to a stock sale that treated her husband's jewelry business as separate property and limited her rights to the sale proceeds. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that no evidence showed the alleged malpractice proximately caused any damage to the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence on the issue of proximate cause to present the question to a jury.

family law

In State v. Webb, the defendant was convicted of burglary, fraudulent scheme, theft, and multiple forgery counts after being identified by a bank employee while passing stolen checks and later linked to a university break-in via photo evidence. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress based on lack of probable cause for arrest, the use of a parole officer to enter his apartment for a search, and admission of evidence from an uncharged burglary; the state cross-appealed the trial court's failure to enhance the sentence for crimes committed while on release. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the bank employee's identification provided probable cause for arrest and incident search at the outset, that the parole officer's involvement was permissible under standard parole conditions authorizing warrantless searches, and that the burglary evidence was relevant to identity and motive. On the cross-appeal, the court modified the sentence to run consecutively to prior terms and revoked eligibility for early release. The decision rests on interpretations of Arizona statutes governing warrantless arrests and parole searches, along with rules for state cross-appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Arizona's use immunity statute, A.R.S. § 13-4064, which allows courts to compel testimony in exchange for protection against use of that testimony or its fruits in prosecution, violates the Arizona Constitution's provisions on self-incrimination and transactional immunity. Petitioner Patchell refused to testify before a grand jury despite a grant of use immunity, leading to a contempt finding, and argued that the constitution's specific allowance for transactional immunity only in bribery cases limited the legislature's authority to enact broader use immunity rules. The court accepted special action jurisdiction but denied relief, upholding the statute. It reasoned that the legislature possesses plenary power to enact laws on subjects addressed in the constitution so long as the statutes align with its spirit, and found the use immunity provisions consistent with the purposes of Article 2, sections 10 and 19, which address self-incrimination and limited immunity. The court noted that the statute's safeguards, including prosecutorial and judicial discretion, address historical concerns about immunity grants without conflicting with constitutional limits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellees Mariposa Development Company and RMH&S Land Company seeking to quiet title to a one-acre well site in Santa Cruz County after discovering a missing deed from prior owners. Before filing suit, they sent letters to the Stoddards and other heirs requesting quitclaim deeds, initially offering $100 and later referencing the statutory $5 tender under A.R.S. § 12-1103(B), but the Stoddards did not comply. After obtaining a default judgment in the quiet title action, the trial court awarded attorney fees to the appellees. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the pre-suit tender was sufficient despite being conditional on all deeds being returned, as any objections were waived by silence, and that the statute's purpose of avoiding unnecessary litigation supported the fee award, which could also apply on appeal.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Lindsey, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of incest and six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, all involving his daughter as the victim, with sentences aggravated but running concurrently up to 21 years. On appeal, the defendant raised issues including the trial court's admission of expert testimony on the behavior of incest victims, its exclusion of evidence about the complainant's other sexual activity, the introduction of evidence of the defendant's other bad acts, and alleged improprieties in the prosecutor's closing argument. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. It reasoned that expert testimony on common behaviors of victims of in-home child molestation was admissible under Rule 702 to assist the jury, that other evidentiary rulings were either correct or harmless error, and that any issues with closing arguments were either invited, waived, or did not affect the verdict.

criminal law

The case involves Samuel Rosthenhausler appealing convictions and sentences on multiple counts of armed robbery and aggravated assault arising from two armed robberies of convenience stores in March 1984, as well as related convictions from additional uncharged incidents admitted at trial. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions and sentences in the consolidated appeals, including enhancements under A.R.S. § 13-604 for dangerous and repetitive offenses and consecutive sentencing. The court held that evidence of the uncharged robberies and the seizure of a sawed-off shotgun was properly admitted, the two charged incidents were properly tried together, in-court identifications were reliable, and the defendant bore the burden of raising reasonable doubt as to the firearm's permanent inoperability rather than requiring the state to disprove it.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case concerned a defendant charged with driving under the influence while his license was revoked or suspended under Arizona law. The trial court granted the state's motion to exclude evidence of the defendant's understanding of his license status, and he was convicted. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a 1983 statutory amendment to A.R.S. § 28-446(B) imposed strict liability by stating that the state need not prove actual knowledge of the suspension or revocation, thereby satisfying the mens rea requirements outlined in prior precedent. It further concluded that the defendant had no right to a hearing on his mandatory revocation, that probable cause supported the arrest, and that sufficient evidence existed for the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Cardenas, the defendant was convicted of child molesting after evidence showed he touched a seven-year-old neighbor inappropriately under the pretext of discussing chicken pox marks and invited her to apply medicine to his penis. He appealed, claiming denial of a fair trial due to television coverage of the proceedings, improper prosecutorial references to media portrayals of child molestation, a misstatement of the burden of proof in closing argument, and insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in allowing limited generic television filming and that the defendant showed no prejudice, that prosecutorial statements did not constitute fundamental error, that the burden argument accurately reflected the credibility issue at trial, and that the victim's testimony plus the described acts sufficiently demonstrated the required sexual motivation. The court also found no reversible error from leading questions posed to the child witness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over entitlement to recover for damage to a DC-8 aircraft negligently caused by Zantop International Airlines. An insurer (BAIC) had paid its insured (FBA) under a policy and sought subrogation against Zantop, while ITL (the conditional seller retaining title and possession) and General Dynamics (claiming a lien from a sheriff's levy) asserted competing rights to the recovery. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment for BAIC, holding that ITL alone was entitled to damages because the conditional buyer never took possession and thus the risk of loss had not passed, and that General Dynamics' unrecorded prior transfers were effective against it as a mere judgment creditor rather than an innocent purchaser. The court also modified the award to limit prejudgment interest to the date of judgment.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure