Arizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Ronan's 'particularized need' balancing framework—not a looser 'reasonable basis' standard—governs a former indicted defendant who lawfully possesses grand jury transcripts under A.R.S.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the court of appeals misapplied A.R.S. § 12-2604 as construed in Baker because it identified the care or treatment at issue solely as the wound care Dr.

The court held that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 19.4 did not require a successor judge assigned solely to sentencing to review the trial transcripts because no proceeding was interrupted and sentencing had not begun when the reassignment occurred.

The court held that Arizona law gives the Department standing to appear and defend an unemployment-benefits appeals-board decision in the court of appeals, subject to statutory and record-based limits on its arguments.

The court held that the clergy-penitent privilege applies only when the claimant establishes that the communication was a confidential acknowledgment or admission made to clergy for spiritual absolution, consolation, or guidance, along with the other statutory requirements.

The Arizona Supreme Court clarified that attorney‑client privilege does not automatically extend to communications with a third party absent the client unless the third party’s presence is objectively necessary, and it reaffirmed that the party asserting privilege bears the burden of proof.

The court held that strict product liability requires separate proof that a product was defective, that the defect made it unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect proximately caused the injury.

The court held that multiple named insureds who jointly procure automobile insurance constitute “one insured” under the uninsured/underinsured motorist statute’s anti-stacking provision.

The court held that joint legal decision-making authority does not become sole legal decision-making merely because one parent receives final authority over specified issues if the parents cannot agree.

The opinion addresses challenges to the search of Goudeau’s home, consumptive DNA testing, joinder and severance, counsel, trial-management procedures, evidentiary rulings, identification testimony, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the especially cruel aggravator.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Christopher Mathew Payne's convictions for two counts of first degree murder, three counts of child abuse, and two counts of concealing a dead body, along with the death sentences imposed for each murder, rejecting challenges to jury selection, venue, Miranda rulings, hearsay…

The Arizona Supreme Court held that tattooing is constitutionally protected expression: the tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and the business of tattooing are pure speech entitled to full First Amendment protection and to protection under Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.

The Arizona Supreme Court addressed what hearing a superior court must conduct when postconviction DNA testing ordered under A.R.S. § 13-4240 produces results favorable to the petitioner.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the same standard governs a trial court's rulings on pre-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal under Rule 20(a) and post-verdict renewed motions under Rule 20(b): the sole question is whether the record contains substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Dann’s death sentences after his resentencing jury found the multiple-murder aggravator and rejected leniency. The court held that Dann validly waived counsel, the resentencing procedures and evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible constitutional or discretionary error, and…

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), as previously interpreted by the Court, continues to govern the sufficiency of claims for relief: Arizona retains notice pleading and has not adopted the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Cory Morris's convictions for five first degree murders and his five death sentences. It held that independent evidence—drag marks, DNA matches, and the victims' belongings—established the corpus delicti of the Codman and Davis murders without proof of cause of death, that the jury…

The court held that the statute requiring restitution payments not to be stayed during an appeal conflicts directly with the criminal rule automatically staying restitution sentences.

The Arizona Supreme Court, sitting en banc, held that a person who improperly gives his prescription drugs to another owes a duty of care to third parties injured by their unauthorized use, grounding the duty in Arizona statutes that criminalize distributing prescription drugs to persons without valid prescriptions.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.a(3) did not preclude Donna Bennett's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of causation on her felony murder conviction, because her first post-conviction counsel could have raised the…

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Frank Roque's convictions and non-capital sentences for the post-9/11 murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi but reduced his death sentence to natural life imprisonment without possibility of release after independent review found substantial mitigation—mental illness impairing his capacity to…

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Steven Ray Newell's convictions for first degree murder, sexual conduct with a minor, and kidnapping, and his death sentence for the 2001 abduction, sexual assault, and ligature-strangulation killing of eight-year-old Elizabeth Byrd.

The court held that asserting an all-or-nothing defense does not automatically forfeit a defendant's right to a lesser-included offense instruction. Because the record supported a rational finding that Wall intended to aid only a theft by ruse and did not establish the force or threat required for robbery, the trial…

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a Blakely claim not preserved by objection at trial must be reviewed for fundamental error rather than harmless error, placing on the defendant the burden of showing both that fundamental error occurred and that it caused prejudice.

The court affirmed Anderson's convictions and death sentences, concluding that his preserved and unpreserved challenges to the indictment, jury selection, evidence, instructions, prosecutorial arguments, and aggravating circumstances did not warrant relief.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the clear and convincing evidence standard of A.R.S. § 8-537.B applies only to the statutory grounds for termination, and the best interests of the child must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Applying the Mathews v.

The Arizona Supreme Court, sitting en banc, rejected Robert Joe Moody's challenges to his 2001 retrial convictions for the 1993 murders of Michelle Malone and Patricia Magda, holding that double jeopardy did not bar retrial after his first convictions were reversed for deprivation of counsel, that the indictment need…

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed James Edward Davolt II's convictions for two first degree murders, burglary, theft, arson, and theft of means of transportation, but remanded his death sentences because Arizona's automatic filing statute subjected him—a sixteen-year-old—to capital prosecution without any…

The court held that an interlocutory judgment is appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(G) when the trial court expressly determines that the parties' rights are finally resolved and that only the amount of recovery remains.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Dann's felony murder convictions for all three victims, his premeditated murder conviction for Andrew Parks, and his burglary conviction and sentence, but reversed the premeditated murder convictions for Shelly Parks and Eddie Payan because a premeditation instruction and…

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the lease addendum's notice provision did not prescribe exclusive methods for exercising the option to purchase, so a written exercise sent by regular mail was not automatically ineffective, and whether Andrews received Blake's September 20 letter before the October 1, 1999 deadline…

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a lender's lack of a traditional duty to disclose did not defeat the pension funds' intentional tort claims arising from the bank's handling of Symington's defaulted Alta Mesa loan while the funds' Mercado take-out commitment was pending.

The Arizona Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed Aaron Scott Hoskins' convictions for premeditated murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and theft and affirmed his death sentence on mandatory appeal.

The court affirmed Jones's convictions and death sentences, rejecting challenges involving hearsay, alleged prosecutorial intimidation, jury death-qualification, prejudicial testimony, closing argument, venue, authentication of a police sketch, presence at a trial proceeding, and capital sentencing.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the statutory definition of abandonment in A.R.S. § 8-531.1 applies to severance actions involving married as well as unmarried parents, and that clear and convincing evidence supported terminating an incarcerated father's rights for abandonment where, for more than a year after the…

The court held that an insurer's claim being fairly debatable is not an absolute defense to a first-party bad-faith action. An insurer must still investigate, evaluate, and process the claim reasonably and in good faith, and the evidence here permitted a jury to find that State Farm acted unreasonably and knowingly…

The court held that a noncustodial parent’s voluntary departure from employment to attend school must be evaluated under an intermediate balancing test rather than a good-faith or strict-earning-capacity rule.

The court reversed the defendant's first-degree murder conviction and death sentence because hearsay statements attributed to the victim improperly conveyed her beliefs that the defendant would kill her, and the error was prejudicial in light of the State's thin proof of premeditation.

The Arizona Supreme Court reversed Alex Hughes's convictions for first degree murder and related felonies, holding that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's misconduct—repeated groundless insinuations that defense counsel and expert witnesses fabricated an insanity defense, an improper comment on Hughes's failure…

The court affirmed Greene's convictions and sentences for first-degree murder, robbery, theft, and forgery, including the death sentence, but reversed the kidnapping conviction because the evidence did not establish knowing restraint beyond a reasonable doubt.