|
| | 9/16/2019 |
| CV-18-0176-PR | BRUSH & NIB et al v CITY OF PHOENIX | OPINION |
| | Andrew W. Gould, Author; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Scott Bales, Dissent; Ann Scott Timmer, Dissent; Christopher P. Staring, Dissent
|
| | Corrected by email dated September 19, 2019. Attorney Brad Holm inadvertently was left off as counsel. |
|
| | 9/9/2019 |
| CV-18-0275-PR | CITY OF PHOENIX et al v ORBITZ WORLDWIDE et al | OPINION |
| | John R. Lopez, Author; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; Scott Bales, Concur; Peter J. Eckerstrom, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur in part; Dissent in part; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur in the Dissent
|
| | |
|
| | 8/23/2019 |
| CR-16-0261-AP | STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAMES CLAYTON JOHNSON | OPINION |
| | Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Scott Bales, Concur; Paul J. McMurdie, Concur
|
| | Constitutionality Decision
Upholding the constitutionality of A.RS. § 13-751(F)(6), which provides as an aggravating circumstance in a capital case that "the defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner", against the challenge that it is overly vague and provides inadequate guidance, in light of further narrowing instructions.
Affirming the holding of State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018), that the Arizona death penalty statutory scheme sufficiently narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty in accordance with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. |
|
| | 8/15/2019 |
| CV-18-0178-PR | TRISHA A. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY/L.A./L.A. | OPINION |
| | John R. Lopez, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Clint Bolick, Dissent
|
| | |
|
| | 8/15/2019 |
| CV-19-0001-PR | GILBERT AGUIRRE JR v. ICA/CITY OF GOODYEAR et al | OPINION |
| | Andrew W. Gould, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Scott Bales, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 8/13/2019 |
| CR-16-0261-AP | STATE OF ARIZONA v JAMES CLAYTON JOHNSON | OPINION |
| | Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Scott Bales, Concur; Paul J. McMurdie, Concur
|
| | Per ASC Order filed August 23, 2019, the Opinion filed August 13, 2019 is Withdrawn.
Please see Opinion filed August 23, 2019. |
|
| | 8/9/2019 |
| CR-18-0380-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v PHILIP JOHN MARTIN | OPINION |
| | Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 8/7/2019 |
| CR-17-0425-AP | STATE OF ARIZONA v ALAN MATTHEW CHAMPAGNE | OPINION |
| | Clint Bolick, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| | Constitutionality Decision
Upholding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(6), which provides as an aggravating circumstance in a capital case that “[t]he defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner,” against challenges that it is unconstitutionally vague and that this Court’s judicial narrowing of the aggravator violates separation of powers.
Affirming the holding of State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018), that Arizona’s death penalty statutory scheme does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or article 2, sections 4 and 15 of the Arizona Constitution.
|
|
| | 7/24/2019 |
| CV-19-0158-PR | ARIZONA CHAPTER et al v CITY OF PHOENIX et al | OPINION |
| | Ann Scott Timmer, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 7/17/2019 |
| CR-18-0431-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v STEPHEN JAY MALONE JR | OPINION |
| | Ann Scott Timmer, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Scott Bales, Concur in part; Dissent in part
|
| | |
|
|