Recent Arizona Court Decisions

Arizona Supreme Court

State v. Alan Lehr, Ariz. Sup. Ct., July 13, 2011
The Court ruled there is no constitutional requirement for courts to inquire into the reasons for a defendant’s waiver of rights.  The defendant’s claim that his waiver of appearance motivated by a fear of wearing a stunbelt upon appearance at Court did not render his waiver invalid, nor was the trial court under any obligation to ask.  So long as the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, no error is established.  The Court rejected all other basis for the defendant’s challenge of his death sentence, and affirmed the convictions and sentences. http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/23/pdf2011/CR090095AP.pdf

State v. Fisher, Ariz. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2011
Protective sweep of an apartment, after occupants (including suspect) have already been removed from the apartment, violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Read Opinion

Arizona Courts of Appeals

Civil Cases

Raimey v. Hon. Ditsworth/Dreamland, App. Div. One, July 21, 2011
The Court ruled that the trial court erred when it ruled restrictive covenants invalid and unenforceable, but then ruled its judgment applied not to all homeowners upon whom the restrictive covenant was applied, but only to the parties of the lawsuit.  The Court also ruled that the judgment should include reasonable restitution on equitable grounds for the petitioners, and that the petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees should be heard.
http://azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/SA/SA100255.pdf

Bridgestone/Old Repujblic v. ICA/Truelock App. Div. One, July 14, 2011
The Court held that an injured employee who loses teeth in an industrial accident is entitled to an award, and need not prove disfigurement.  The Court followed the plain language of the statute ARS § 23-1044(B)(22).  The Court accepted the argument that given advances in dental technology that have occurred in the intervening years since the statute was written, the underlying basis for the distinction in the statute may now be questionable.  However, the Court noted the wisdom of the continuation of the statute is a policy matter for the legislature.
http://azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/IC/IC100059.pdf

Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney App. Div. One, July 21, 2011
The Court held that ARS § 45-578.B limits the pool of potential objectors to residents of the active management area (AMA) where the water is to be used.  This limitation’s constitutionality was upheld under a due process and equal protection challenge, because there is a rational basis for having such limitation and an adequate alternative forums in which to protect the plaintiff’s water rights.
http://azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/CV/CV100255.pdf

Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac, Ct. App. Div. One, May 26, 2011
After a lengthy analysis of the wrongful death statutes, the Court of Appeals determined that a jury can award zero damages to adult children in a wrongful death claim, even where liability is undisputed and the adult children's testimony was uncontradicted.  The court distinguished the cases of White and Sedillo, and expanded the holding of Quinonez, where the jury awarded no damages to a husband whose only relationship to his decedent wife was to use her as "a punching bag."  Read Opinion

Mangan v. Mangan, Ct. App. Div. One, May 26, 2011
Where an Arizona court entered a divorce decree, and mother then fled the state with the minor children during subsequent post dissolution custody proceedings, without clear evidence of compliance with A.R.S. 25-408, the absence of the children for an extended period does not deprive the Arizona court of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Read Opinion

Canyon Del Rio Investors v. City of Flagstaff, Ct. App. Div. One, May 24, 2011
The statute of limitations for challenge to a municipal zoning decision does not begin to run until all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Read Opinion

Chavez v. Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, Ct. App. Div. Two, May 18, 2011
Where students are preparing to board a school bus, although not yet on the bus, Arizona statutes mandate that they be covered insureds pursuant to the school district's UM/UIM coverage for injuries arising from an accident where a driver hit the bus and the children. Read Opinion

Criminal Cases

State v. Hon. Whitten/Martinez, App. Div. One, July 21, 2011
The Court ruled the Superior Court erred in ordering the State to compensate the deceased victim’s treating physicians as expert witnesses at a murder trial.   The Court adopted a procedure where prior to trial, the parties must determine and disclose the capacity in which physicians will be called as trial witnesses—these disclosure would then dictate the proper parameters of the doctors’ trial testimony.
http://azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/SA/SA110127.pdf

State v. Kemper App. Div. One, July 12, 2011
The Court held that it is fundamental error to accidentally omit the jury instruction advising the jurors of the mens rea applicable to the “without consent” element of the Sexual Assault.  The Court ruled that the omission of that instruction relieved the Prosecution of its rightful burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt every element of that crime.  The Court vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
http://azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/CR/CR090893OP.pdf

State v. Regenold, Ct. App. Div. One, May 26, 2011
Where the purported victim of sexual luring of a minor below age 15 is actually an undercover police officer impersonating a 14 year old, A.R.S. 13-705 and 13-3554 do not trigger the more severe sentencing range because the victim must, in fact, be below age 15.  (Also decided similarly in Division Two, below) Read Opinion

State v. Villegas, Ct. App. Div. Two, May 25, 2011
Where the purported victim of sexual luring of a minor below age 15 is actually an undercover police officer impersonating a 14 year old, A.R.S. 13-705 and 13-3554 do not trigger the more severe sentencing range because the victim must, in fact, be below age 15.  (Also decided similarly in Division One, below) Read Opinion

State v. Bigger, Ct. App. Div. Two, May 24, 2011
Defendant convicted of first degree murder challenged conviction based upon refusal to change venue to avoid publicity, admission of DNA probability evidence, and preclusion of evidence of third party culpability.  Each issues was rejected and the conviction was upheld. Read Opinion