Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Arizona
State v. Burr
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-05-07
In State v. Burr, the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's dismissal of aggravated driving under the influence charges against Alyssa Marie Burr on double jeopardy grounds. After the jury was empaneled in Burr's first trial, the assigned prosecutor became unavailable due to a death in the family, leading the original judge to declare a mistrial sua sponte on grounds that forcing a substitute attorney would be unfair to the state. A new judge later granted Burr's motion to dismiss, concluding manifest necessity had not existed for the mistrial. The appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case, ruling that the original judge's finding of manifest necessity was reasonable under Arizona and federal double jeopardy standards because a key participant's sudden, unexpected absence can satisfy the required high degree of necessity, and the subsequent judge erred by reviewing that determination de novo instead of accepting it as law of the case.
criminal lawprocedure
Star Publishing Co. v. Bernini
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-01-27 · cited 2×
In Star Publishing Co. v. Bernini, a newspaper challenged a trial judge’s summary denial of its request under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 122 to photograph a criminal jury trial, arguing the denial was improper because it occurred without a pre-trial hearing, considered the request’s timing, and barred all camera access due to privacy and security concerns. The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction on grounds of public importance concerning media access to proceedings and the practical application of Rule 122, even though the underlying trial had ended and rendered the issues moot. The court held that Rule 122 permits a judge to weigh the timeliness of a request—filed only two working days before trial—as one factor in the decision and requires an on-the-record hearing when objections are raised, so the judge erred by denying the request without first conducting such a hearing. Because the trial was already over, however, the court denied relief.
criminal lawfree speechprocedure
Jackson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011-09-30 · cited 6×
The case involved Anthony Jackson's injury in an accident with an uninsured driver while riding as a passenger in his own vehicle, which was being driven by an employee of a Chevron repair station. After recovering uninsured motorist benefits under Chevron's Business Auto Policy, the Jacksons sued for a declaration that similar coverage must be imputed to the station's separate Businessowner’s Policy because the insurer had not offered it, as allegedly required by Arizona’s Uninsured Motorist Act, A.R.S. § 20-259.01. The trial court granted summary judgment to Nationwide, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the Businessowner’s Policy, a general commercial liability policy containing only a limited garage operations endorsement for autos, was not a primary motor vehicle liability policy subject to the statutory offer requirement under § 20-259.01(L); therefore, the absence of an offer did not result in imputed coverage.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH-2010-0047
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011-08-18 · cited 7×
The case concerned a patient's challenge to a trial court's order renewing his involuntary mental health treatment under A.R.S. § 36-543, after the patient was found persistently or acutely disabled. The patient moved to dismiss the petition for continued treatment, arguing that the required annual examination occurred outside the 30-day window mandated by Arizona Administrative Code R9-21-506 and that only one physician examined him instead of the two required by the regulation. The trial court denied the motion, found clear and convincing evidence that the patient remained in need of treatment and unable to accept it voluntarily, and ordered continued inpatient and outpatient care for another year. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that strict compliance with the statute is required but that the regulation's two-physician requirement conflicted with the statute's allowance for one or more examiners and must be disregarded; the timing issue did not warrant dismissal given the evidence presented.
healthcareprocedurecivil rights
State v. Gray
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011-06-20 · cited 10×
The case involved Ricky Gray, convicted after a jury trial of aggravated domestic violence, tampering with a witness, and influencing a witness based on letters sent to his girlfriend urging her to avoid court proceedings and not cooperate in a pending domestic violence case. The appellate court considered whether a conviction for witness tampering under A.R.S. § 13-2804 requires the state to prove that the witness actually withheld testimony or failed to appear as a result of the defendant's conduct. Interpreting the statute's plain language, the court held that the term "induce" requires only that the defendant knowingly attempt to persuade the witness to engage in the prohibited acts, without needing evidence of actual effect, as the legislature had omitted any success element present in prior witness-tampering statutes. The convictions were therefore upheld.
criminal law
In Re Marriage of Gibbs
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011-06-09 · cited 39×
This case concerns a former wife's petition to reinstate child support for her adult daughter, who has severe mental disabilities, after the 1988 divorce decree and a 1993 stipulated order had terminated the father's support obligation when the daughter turned twenty-two. The trial court denied the petition on grounds of claim preclusion (res judicata) from the 1993 order and ruled that the daughter was not a party to the proceedings. The appellate court reversed that ruling, holding that claim preclusion did not apply because the daughter's potential lifelong disability preventing self-support was not known or litigable at the time of the 1993 stipulation, and it remanded for further proceedings on the support claim while addressing related issues such as attorney fees and party status.
family lawprocedure